Robert Schlesinger doesn’t seem to understand how rights work. Let’s take a look at what he says:
Thanks to the Supreme Court, D.C. citizens can keep and bear arms. They simply have to register them, and cannot have any of the semi-automatic variety. Only radical gun rights advocate suggest these are unconstitutional limitations—and if they are unconstitutional, then under-armed D.C. citizens can gain redress through the courts.
What they can’t do is try to gain redress through Congress, where the 600,000 D.C. residents lack a real voice. Which wouldn’t stop Congress from dictating what kind of gun laws D.C.’s 600,000 residents should have.
Let me rephrase this slightly:
Thanks to the Supreme Court, D.C. citizens can subscribe to newspapers. They simply have to limit themselves to newspapers registered with the government, and may not read any radical papers like USA Today. Only radical first amendment advocates suggest these are unconstitutional limitations—and if they are unconstitutional, then under-educated D.C. citizens can gain redress through the courts.
What they can’t do is try to gain redress through Congress, where the 600,000 D.C. residents lack a real voice. Which wouldn’t stop Congress from dictating what kind of censorship laws D.C.’s 600,000 residents should have.
Still consider yourself a Bill of Rights supporter Mr. Schlesingler?
Very good! Something like this should be done every time some anti gun wingnut says anything.
Well done, sir!
The article is dumber in another respect, though. Whatever the merits of DC’s gun laws, it’s not as though there were any serious doubt that the other part of the bill – creating a Congressional district to represent a non-state – is patently unconstitutional.