Guns in Washington, D.C.
Surely It Can't Be!

ruler.jpg (6155 bytes)

WND Exclusive Commentary
Rantings of fools over guns
by Jon Dougherty


I don't know if you caught a few little news items last week, but, you should know about them.  They involve a few of the best examples I've seen yet of national politicians demonstrating: a) political programming; b) mindless stupidity; and, c) a separation from reality.

Last week, after hearing about the allegedly gang-related shootings of seven children visiting the National Zoo in Washington, DC during the Easter weekend, Vice President Al Gore told a New York fundraising audience, "We really have to have mandatory child-safety trigger locks and photo license IDs for the purchase of new handguns."

Then, on Friday, President Bill Clinton issued a call to donate another $350,000 to the District to fund its gun buy-back program -- even though DC isn't supposed to have any guns because the laws there have forbade them for nearly 24 years.  Now, to be fair, both Clinton and Gore know that Washington, D.C. banned new handgun purchases in 1976 -- and even banned anyone from bringing a handgun into the District or transporting a handgun through the city.

They are both aware that decades ago the federal protectorate of Washington took early and radical steps to prohibit a citizen's right to keep and bear arms in what is arguably supposed to be the center of the freedoms enumerated in the U.S. Constitution and readily available to all citizens -- regardless of where they happen to live.

What neither of them do seem to know (or choose to ignore) is that all of those lovely, pre-programmed leftist policy statements don't apply to the real world; in fact, they obviously don't even apply in the surreal world of Washington, D.C.  But, these two -- and plenty of other elitist government, media and academia types -- make these ignorant statements anyway (as if repetition were a suitable replacement for truth, facts, and reality).

Yes, I know -- to a great many Americans repetition is the mother of all truths, but that's a theory we, who know better, have to work harder to debunk.  So, let's start with some sweet irony first.

First, Gore's proposal won't work because, we're told, there are no guns in Washington, D.C. And, Clinton's proposal won't work because, we're told, there are no guns to buy back in D.C.  And we all know there can't be any guns there because the Clinton administration insists it has been "vigorously enforcing" this nation's gun laws and, you'd have to believe, those of the District because the District is "federal turf."

However, there are guns there -- and we all know that -- so the criticism over gun law enforcement leveled recently by the NRA, George W. Bush, and the multitude of other Americans who advocate stricter gun law enforcement is absolutely valid.   Furthermore, if what the Clinton administration says about its gun law enforcement was true, then there would have been no National Zoo shooting and no guns to lock up or buy back. Since we all know their indignant proclamations are not true, then that makes their proposals ridiculous, pointless, and -- like the NRA has said -- completely political in nature.

So, how in the name of integrity can these cowards blame the gun industry for gun crimes inside cities with rigorous anti-gun laws and, as it happens, inside the boundaries of a city that is exclusively the domain of the federal government?  The gun laws are in place; if they were being enforced, then, that should have prevented all these shootings municipalities and the federal government have blamed on the gun industry -- regardless of how many weapons are being sold to the public.

Meanwhile, gun industry executives who decided to counter-sue these hypocrites last week are scratching their heads, wondering how any court of law with a modicum of common sense could blame their heavily regulated industry for contributing in any way to the violence federal, state and local officials cannot even prevent -- even though they're "vigorously enforcing" this nation's gun laws.

The excuses vary, but, they go something like this:  Well, people are getting murdered because of irresponsible marketing habits, say the Handgun Control, Inc. loonies.   And, anyway, those darned guns are not even made safely, say the mayors of the cities suing the industry. Yeah, and it's not our fault guns are "somehow" acquired by the downtrodden who permeate our housing projects, says the federal government -- as if Ruger or Taurus executives are pimping handguns illegally in these places.

What kind of dope actually believes these excuses?  Well, lots of dopes.

And, probably, lots of people who smoke dope because you'd have to be on drugs or something else that is banned to think this way.  I doubt that the tobacco companies or Microsoft "conspired" to "defraud" or lie to the American public anymore than any other major successful company in this country or, for that matter, any worse than the liars on Capitol Hill and in the White House.  I also doubt that, as heavily regulated as the gun industry already is, it is their fault cities, states, mayors, and HUD commissioners can't seem to find a way to use the plethora of anti-gun laws already in existence to stop all this accursed gun violence.

It isn't necessarily the fault -- completely -- of cities, states and the federal government that there is so much gun law violation going on this country. Stupid or disturbed people do stupid things to other people and will use guns, knives, ball bats, cars or their fists to get the job done.  But, to sue a legitimate and overly regulated industry into the ground just because you hate the fact that ordinary people are armed and have the power to clean your clock if you try to play "Mr. Evil Dictator" to them is not what this country is supposed to be about.

The government-led hypocrisy is deep in this "debate" over guns in America.   Let's hope prospective jurors and judges aren't misled by it; it's just too obvious to miss.


Jon E. Dougherty is a staff writer for WorldNetDaily.