Voting Rights v. Gun Rights: Washington Post Shows Blind Bigotry on Guns

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. Read more

Source: Seattle Gun Rights Examiner

COMMENT