What “Bill of Rights” doesn’t she understand?

Today’s Washington Post has an article on the current misguided effort to get DC representative Eleanor Holmes Norton a vote in the House.  (NB: Norton is the only politician I’ve ever seen tell a room full of constituents to “shut up” when they disagreed with her.)  Rep Ensign has introduced an amendment that would nullify the illogical, inane, and repressive gun-registration restrictions the DC council introduced to try to get around the Heller decision.

You have to be subscribed to read this article, but this is the part that got me:

But City Council member Mary M. Cheh (D-Ward 3) said she would say no to the deal.

“It’s unacceptable to link our fundamental right to vote with the condition that we sacrifice public safety,” she said yesterday. “I . . . don’t agree that we should kneel down to the NRA and the gun lobby.

“First of all, we’ve been denied this fundamental right,” she said. “We’re entitled to it by any measure of fair and just democracy. And then to say the only way you can get this — this little crumb that they’re throwing at us — is to give up on our laws that we’ve passed in the interest of protecting the public.

“I hope the whole nation is watching this, to see how Congress uses us as a plaything.”

Does she somehow not understand that gun rights ARE GUARANTEED BY THE CONSTITUTION?  As in the Bill of RIGHTS?

Contrast this with the voice of someone who understands:

Valencia Mohammed, director of Mothers of Unsolved Murders, a D.C. advocacy group for mothers of homicide victims, said she would welcome the deal, although she has lost two sons to gun violence in the city.

“This is one of the inalienable rights that I wanted,” she said. “I want my vote to be counted. I want representation in Congress. And I also want the right to bear arms.

“I’m just looking at the history of my ancestors and what they went through and how they were shot and killed, tarred and feathered and burned to death,” she said. “Guns was one of those things that they could not have and a tool for other people that kept them enslaved. I’m saying no more of that. I want to enjoy all of those rights that they were denied. . . . It’s time.”

Frankly, I think Mohammed ought to be on the Council, and Cheh on the streets, where she can see how well those “laws that we’ve passed in the interest of protecting the public” are working.

Mind you, I’m somewhat indifferent on the District getting a vote.  It galls me that it’s being bandied as a partisan issue — either the District residents are due a voice without a “balance” or they aren’t.  I don’t think the District founders meant for the district to be where someone actually LIVED, but rather where citizens went to pass such minimal government as was necessary and then leave.  However, at the time, the permanent residents were slaves, who couldn’t vote.  So I see the other side.  Pandering so the “other party” feels they didn’t lose anything is an insult.

I’m disgusted, too, with the carpetbaggers who move to the district knowing they don’t have representation in Congress, then complain.  That’s like moving next to an airport, or a shooting range, and then complaining about the noise.  If you chose to move to DC, it was part of the choice.  If you were born and raised there, it’s your home, and your voice carries more weight with me.

Advertisements

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: https://amcit.wordpress.com/2009/03/22/what-bill-of-rights-doesnt-she-understand/trackback/

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: