RSS
Home
Voting rights v. gun rights: Washington Post shows blind bigotry on guns
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
The Washington Post on May 20 published an editorial that clearly demonstrates why that newspaper is losing readers: Somebody on the copy desk or on the editorial board needs a refresher course on civil rights as a reminder that one right is just as important as another.
The Post is howling over the fact that a voting rights bill to allow District of Columbia residents full representation in the House of Representatives is being stalled by a measure that would strip the city’s vehemently anti-gun council of the authority to regulate guns.
The city council and mayor despise the ruling they got from the U.S. Supreme Court last year that struck down the long-standing handgun ban as a violation of the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Since that ruling, the city has had to be dragged kicking and screaming to a point that they are now at least allowing citizens to register handguns, yet they are trying to micro-manage the program in such a manner as to discourage the greatest number of people from exercising their newly-restored Second Amendment rights.
Well, too bad for the Washington Post. While their editorial whines that “It is infuriating that this unacceptable trade-off is even on the table,” they should keep in perspective that there should not be the need for a “trade-off” in the first place. The Post needs to remember that owning a gun is just as much a right as casting a vote. Indeed, the fact that so many Americans have owned guns, and have been willing to bear them on battlefields all over the world, is what has guaranteed that voting right still exists.
The Post editorial observes, “As the first African American president, Mr. Obama is in a unique position to talk about the injustice of disenfranchising the people of the District, many of whom are African American.”
Well, let’s ignore the racial overtone of that statement and look at disenfranchisement.
On Wednesday, the House of Representatives corrected a long-standing case of “disenfranchisement” by passing a measure that will restore the Second Amendment to our national parks and wildlife refuges. Gun prohibitionists howled, engaging in over-the-top rhetoric that demonstrates how out of touch with reality some of them have become.
Families should not have to stare down loaded AK-47s on nature hikes - Paul Helmke, Brady Campaign president
Paul Helmke, the logic-challenged president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, frantically declared that park visitors would end up staring down people armed with AK-47s. That is utter nonsense, and he knows it.
On the other hand, Alan Gottlieb with the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, called the House vote a "great victory for gun rights and common sense."
Where was the newspaper’s outrage over the disenfranchisement of millions of Armed Americans (if the Post can stereotype the president, we can stereotype 80 million of his fellow citizens who own guns) that the parks gun ban had perpetuated? The Washington Post has opposed the guns in parks measure.
Unarmed park visitors will benefit from the deterrent effect this new statute will have on criminals, and that will be especially important if budget cuts reduce the number of commissioned park rangers - Alan Gottlieb
Here in the real Washington, four members of the Congressional delegation voted to end that parks disenfranchisement. Representatives Doc Hastings, Kathy McMorris Rodgers, Dave Reichert and Adam Smith voted for a civil right, while Norm Dicks, Jay Inslee, Brian Baird, Jim McDermott and Rick Larsen essentially voted to maintain a risk free working environment for car prowlers, drug thugs, dope growers, rapists and murderers in our national parks. Senators Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray also voted against firearm civil rights.
The fact that some park visitors might be armed will serve as a deterrent to crime as it has served in areas with high rates of gun ownership all over the country. The new law will not require anyone to have a gun, but that fact that somebody might is going to make thugs think twice. Those opposed to the measure evidently never thought that one through. They are the ones who oppose gun ownership, but don’t post signs at their homes advising neighborhood criminals that “There are no guns in this house.”
It is not unlawful for a person to responsibly walk down the street with a visible firearm, even if this action would shock some people. - State v. Casad
The new regulation will make it possible to carry concealed or openly, in accordance with the law of the state in which the park is located. Washington is an open carry state, and while some may not like that, or find it shocking, it is perfectly legal - as affirmed by Court of Appeals rulings - and no open carry practitioner has harmed anyone to my knowledge.
Now, this is not to condone boorish behavior by gun rights activists. The next nine months before the new law takes effect will provide the firearms community an opportunity to educate the public by their good behavior, and some of the more, er, “energetic activists” might keep that in perspective.
We’re opening up new ground in the realm of social interaction. How we all behave is going to determine just how well, or poorly, this new scenario works. It is not a problem, it is an opportunity.
If the Washington Post could approach the subject of gun rights in the District of Columbia with that same philosophy, they might just find more enthusiasm in Congress for the voting rights measure they want passed.
Visit with other Gun Rights Examiners:
Related Articles:
Comments
Maurice Clemmons, the man authorities are convinced fatally shot four Lakewood, WA police officers Sunday morning in a coffee shop in the Parkland …
The hunt for cop-killer Maurice Clemmons came to an end on a quiet residential Seattle street Tuesday morning, and there can be no question that the …
