Ron Paul on DC gun ban

MrApathy · Mar 14, 2007

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2007/tst031207.htm

The DC Gun Ban

March 12, 2007
Last Friday a federal appeals court in Washington DC issued a ruling that hopefully will result in the restoration of 2nd Amendment rights in the nation's capital. It appears the Court rejected the District of Columbia 's nonsensical argument that the 2nd Amendment confers only a "collective right," something gun control advocates have asserted for years.

Of course we should not have too much faith in our federal courts to protect gun rights, considering they routinely rubber stamp egregious violations of the 1 st, 4th, and 5th Amendments, and allow Congress to legislate wildly outside the bounds of its enumerated powers. Furthermore, the DC case will be appealed to the Supreme Court with no guarantees. But it is very important nonetheless for a federal court only one step below the highest court in the land to recognize that gun rights adhere to the American people, not to government-sanctioned groups. Rights, by definition, are individual. "Group rights" is an oxymoron.

Can anyone seriously contend that the Founders, who had just expelled their British rulers mostly by use of light arms, did not want the individual farmer, blacksmith, or merchant to be armed? Those individuals would have been killed or imprisoned by the King's soldiers if they had relied on a federal armed force to protect them.

In the 1700s, militias were local groups made up of ordinary citizens. They were not under federal control! As a practical matter, many of them were barely under the control of colonial or state authorities. When the 2nd Amendment speaks of a "well-regulated militia," it means local groups of individuals operating to protect their own families, homes, and communities. They regulated themselves because it was necessary and in their own interest to do so.

The Founders themselves wrote in the Federalist papers about the need for individuals to be armed. In fact, James Madison argued in Federalist paper 46 that common citizens should be armed to guard against the threat posed by the newly proposed standing federal army.

Today, gun control makes people demonstrably less safe-- as any honest examination of criminal statistics reveals. In his book "More Guns, Less Crime," scholar John Lott demolishes the myth that gun control reduces crime. On the contrary, Lott shows that cities with strict gun control--like Washington DC--experience higher rates of murder and violent crime. It is no coincidence that violent crime flourishes in the nation's capital, where the individual's right to defend himself has been most severely curtailed.

Understand that residents of DC can be convicted of a felony and put in prison simply for having a gun in their home, even if they live in a very dangerous neighborhood. The DC gun ban is no joke, and the legal challenges to the ban are not simply academic exercises. People's lives and safety are at stake.

Gun control historically serves as a gateway to tyranny. Tyrants from Hitler to Mao to Stalin have sought to disarm their own citizens, for the simple reason that unarmed people are easier to control. Our Founders, having just expelled the British army, knew that the right to bear arms serves as the guardian of every other right. This is the principle so often ignored by both sides in the gun control debate. Only armed citizens can resist tyrannical government.
Click to expand...

BulletBait · Mar 14, 2007

Rom Paul is great.
I wish we had more like him.

tglahn17 · Mar 14, 2007

Word!

I wish I lived in Texas just so I could vote for Ron Paul. I was glad to see the federal appeals court ruling on the DC gun laws. My favorite part of the ruling is that the dissenting judge thought DC's laws should be upheld because DC isn't a state. Is that why the second amendment doesn't apply in DC? What about the first amendment? That the dissenting opinion on this ruling had to stretch to such a lame technicality argument indicates to me that this ruling will be upheld when it gets to the Supreme Court. Here's a good piece on the second amendment and gun control http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... trol&hl=en Later,

BulletBait · Mar 15, 2007

The dissenting opinion isn't just lame, it's insane!

"The 2A doesn't apply in DC because it's not a state"?!?!!?! :shock:

Guess that means they can suspend those other pesky 26 on a whim too :roll:

mikey · Mar 15, 2007

tglahn17 said:

Word!

I wish I lived in Texas just so I could vote for Ron Paul.
Click to expand...

Yup, they sure broke the mold when God created Ron Paul.

And, let's not forget that if you're registered as a Republican, you likely will be able to vote for Ron Paul in your state's upcoming presidential primary (where he's going up against the likes of John McCain and Rudy Giuliani).

BulletBait · Mar 15, 2007

I'll vote for either Mr. Paul or Fred Thompson (oh please, oh please run).
The Manchurian candidate, er, Senator can kiss my butt.

SELFDEFENSE · Apr 9, 2007

I'd love for there to be reciprocity with VA so I could carry in the District of Crime.

Log in or Sign up

Forums

Ron Paul on DC gun ban

MrApathy Active Member

BulletBait New Member

tglahn17 Member

BulletBait New Member

mikey Guest

BulletBait New Member

SELFDEFENSE Premium Member