D.C. officials said yesterday a decision by the Supreme Court to strike down the District's 32-year-old ban on handguns would force them to revamp the city's stringent gun-control statutes.
"There's just this really anxiety-producing proposition on what would we have if we relaxed these laws," said D.C. Council Chairman Vincent C. Gray, a Democrat. "We'd have to evaluate the court's decision, then look at what revisions in our own statutes would allow us to have the maximum restrictions on guns in the District."
If the Supreme Court decides to void the gun ban, then why not try it the way it is supposed to be. Washington D.C. has a very high crime rate now. Why not let the citizens of the city have the advantage of defending themselves?
Most, if not all of the cities that have strict laws against guns also have higher violent crime rates than the rural areas. The amount of property theft in Washington D.C. is about twice as high as the state of Tennessee. I would guess that more than half, if not two-thirds of the homes in Tennessee have at least one gun. Does it not even register to these people that a thief or mugger might consider this before attempting to steal from you? I know I would.
I know what you are thinking. Tennessee and D.C. are totally different places. Maybe one of the reasons for this is because the State of Tennessee trusts it's citizens enough not to take away there Constitutional right to defend themselves.
So that is what I suggest. Let the people in D.C. have the rights that most of America has. Don't treat these people as less than the people that happen to live outside of the city. As Americans we all deserve to be allowed our Constitutional rights.
Update: Check out this video of a D.C. resident explaining how silly the gun laws are there.
And, It looks like the Supreme Court is headed in the right direction.
No comments:
Post a Comment