For those living in the greater D.C. area, you know that a debate has been taking place lately, mostly unheard of due to immigration and Iraq, over whether or not to repeal the ban on hand guns in the Capitol City. Both sides have strong arguments, with gun control proponents saying they don't want to see an influx of crime related violence, and coming from a city that twice elected a crack smoker, I can't say I blame them. Pro gun advocates argue that criminals are just that, criminals, and thus will inherently break the law and find a way to get their hands on weapons. And then there's the third group, which I will not associate with gun control proponents, the outside liberal groups which would just like to see an overall abolition of most gun ownership in America. Typically aligned with the ideas of MoveOn.org and HuffingtonPost.com, these individuals hold themselves to a higher and more understanding plane of existence, and often argue "If the United States has nuclear weapons, who are we to tell Iran it can't have nuclear weapons also." While these arguments could potentially hold water in a vacuum devoid of morality, the same liberals who use this line of reasoning are unwilling to extend the same understanding to potential firearm owners in the U.S. This of course would not be the first time the far left in America shamelessly promoted a double standard, after all, John Edwards is holding on as a strong 3rd candidate in the Democratic Primaries (If I have to tell you how John Edwards exudes double standards, you just haven't been paying attention). Whats truly regrettable is that far left Americans are unwilling to extend pro-gun owning citizens of their country the same benefit of the doubt as they do the Sumpreme Ayatollahs of Iran. Regardless of politican stance or rationale, the fact of the matter is a ban on weapons is hurting the very people it was created to protect.
Gun control proponents do have legitimate concerns in this debate. Some of these people are from the federal government itself, saying the ability to acquire concealable firearms in a city that houses the President and other members of Congress poses too much of a threat. While the President is at all times more than adequately protected, Congressmen and women are far more vulnerable. Go walk past Canon, or for that matter any of the House Office Buildings, and more than one recognizable face will be out and about. Also, aside from the federal government aspect of the District of Columbia, one doesn't have to live in this city very long to realize that this city has plenty of dangerous areas, all strategically located around the calmer, safer parts, and therefore adding weapons could exacerbate the problem.
Gun advocates explain it is exactly the opposite, and that by depriving the good citizens of a populace their ability to arm themselves, society is just creating lambs for the slaughter at the hands of criminals. After the horror that enveloped Virginia Tech had finally subsided, gun rights groups from across the country screamed that had the students at Tech been armed themselves, Cho Seung Hui would have been stopped long before he would have been able to harm so many innocents. Again, I find this debatable, if I were to own a weapon or weapons, I doubt I'd find engineering class a potential threatening situation. Maybe the Boy Scouts motto should ring true, always be prepared. Regardless, it is a microcosm of the greater conflict, if those are wish to do ill to others will obtain the means to do so legally or not, it seems only fitting that those who wish to protect themselves be given the same right.
And now the lefties, which really don't deserve much crtique because their argument is so hypocritically hollow. As mentioned earlier, these are the same type of people that argue that any country on Earth can pursue nukes as long as the U.S. has them. Phenomenal logic. This would be tantamount to saying that all guns in the U.S. should be abolished, and that the effort should start with the cops and work its way down. Sadly, this isn't very far off from the official liberal anti-gun argument. In their perfect, idealistic world, it is inconceivable that anyone out there would obtain a weapon illegally, and thus, the problem lies with the law abiding citizens who are afraid for their own safety. I guess at this point it shouldn't really be surprising, these are the same people who supported Jimmy Carter's attempt to disarm North Korea of nuclear weapons, and well....thanks for the effort kids, good hustle anyway (I would like to point out that I hold no personal grudge against President Carter, but the fact that the man is so implausibly incompetent, and yet still garners the respect of others for his professional "achievments" is astounding to me.)
Now that we're through the theories, lets get to the bottom of things, literally. On the weekend starting May 16th, 19 Robberies occured on Capitol Hill from Friday to Monday. 5 of these happened at gun point, 4 at knife point, and the rest were just good old fashioned shakedowns-purse snatchings and such. Residents who live adjacent to Lincoln Park, which is lined with million dollar homes, are afraid to walk home at night. One of these robberies took place on 3rd and Maryland, a matter of a few hundred yards from the Capitol Building itself. 19 Robberies, many performed in daylight, in one weekend, in the center of the Capital City of the most powerful country in the history of Planet Earth. One could spend a lifetime arguing whats the true cause of this embarrasing statistic. Demographics, poverty, cultural depravity, someone will always be able to point the finger in a different direction. At this point, I'm not concerned with the who or the why, I'm concerned with the where and the how, and the where is my backyard and the how is with the weapons I'm prohibited from obtaining. If the law is preventing me from my own protection, standard logic suggests I should break said law. Benjamin Franklin famously said "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety ultimately deserve neither." Spoken as eloquently as possible, but to our Founding Father I reply with a quote from another eternal great. As Jack Nicholson once aptly stated: "When you're facing a loaded gun, what's the difference?"
Comments