Amendment Number Deux

You may have to have a certain level of intellect to read this post. If that isn't you, stop here..........

Last week the Supreme Court of the United States of America, ruled it unlawful for the District of Columbia to have a ban on firearms. So, a city wide law that has stood for some 32 years is now gone. The District of Columbia has stood for many things since the law was first changed all those years ago. One thing it has consistently stood for is bloodshed. So, here is a blog to make you think before deciding on which side of the aisle you stand on. Mainly, because I don't know what side I stand on!! I straddle the fence a bit, as you will see.

Side A:
Guns are bad. I think we can all agree to that, no? If you pull the trigger, someone could die, or worse yet, someone may be paralyzed from the neck down - yes, I said that is worse than death itself. Here is the problem I have, however, with overturning the gun ban. I'm not going to use a guns are good vs. guns are bad stand.

The biggest problem I have is that the Constitution allows citizens of the District of Columbia to vote for a President, vote for City officials, but...well, that's it! D.C. does not have representation in Congress. I think this is a bunch of crap! The nation's friggin capitol, and the citizens have no representation in Congress! Do they pay taxes? Yes. Okay, I digress...here is the reason this matters. The fact that they do not have representation in Congress is because 'they are not a state'. Follow me now, they are not a state, so they cannot vote or have representation.

Now, let's take a look at the second amendment. The law clearly states "...being necessary to the security of a free State...". Okay, hang on now, here we go...the citizens of the District of Columbia are not residents of a state, so they are not allowed representation in the Congress of the United States? However, the city's view that they are not a state, so the 2ND Amendment does not apply to them is wrong...well, because 5 Republican gun toting justices say so. The 2ND Amendment says 'STATE'. I'm sorry, but this is where I find a loophole in the Justice's argument and they were wrong in my view. You cannot have it both ways! If state laws apply to a non-state, then the non-state in question should have the same representation as 'states' on a national level, in all three branches of government, not just one.

Side B:
This one is pretty easy to explain. There are a lot of criminals packin heat in the District. If I, as a homeowner, shoot an armed burglar in my home, I go to jail under the law that was just ruled unlawful. Therefore, I believe that every citizen has the right to bear arms in protection of their home, and of their persons. For that reason, I am all for the end to the gun ban. I just think this goes a lot further than a gun ban. I think there are more things that need to be looked at, legally.

Synopsis:
I do not agree with guns - for the simple fact that they lead to death. The more guns, the worse off we are. More guns equal more violence. Is some of that warranted? Yes. Is most of it? No. Whether I believe in them or not, is not what matters. I believe that the law needs to protect everyone equally. Whatever your stand is on this issue, I think that we can all agree that under the tenth amendment, the Federal government or 'his' bulldogs known as the Supreme Court, cannot force a 'state' to allow just anyone to own a handgun. D.C. reserves every right under Constitutional protection to limit the access to, and hold the strictest of restrictions of, anyone who wants to have a permit to own a handgun. But then again, after reading the tenth amendment, will the District of Columbia be allowed protections under this amendment? After all, they are not a 'state', are they?