“If Senator Rubio and Representative Jordan are concerned about the reach of the Second Amendment in the United States, there are many opportunities in the federal sector where current law bans their own constituents from possessing guns. Rather than infringe on the democratic rights of the 650,000 District of Columbia residents, I urge them to turn their attention to the federal ban on guns in federal facilities.” –  Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) [via thehill.com]

Recommended For You

62 Responses to Quote of the Day: Infringing on D.C.’s Right to Infringe on Gun Rights

  1. I agree Eleanor. Let’s see these neocons get rid of “background checks” and the NFA crap first. They never will.

    • So, in the antebellum era, would she have advocated first banning the slave markets in the Southern States before baking the slave markets in DC?

      • I don’t think it is a meaningful analogy. The ban on guns on federal property throughout the country is entirely a consequence of the laws that Congress made. In that sense, whether it’s DC or a postal office in Texas, it’s the exact same thing, and takes the same effort to remove – except that removing it from all postal offices throughout the country affects far more people, and removes federal control over day-to-day life in the states.

    • That’s what I’m saying. There’s 535 of them, and each one is paid too much and has too many highly paid “assistants”. Why can they not do both of these things and 30 or 40 more, and be finished by the end of the week?

      Although, I do appreciate her support, and hope it will be thrown in her face when she opposes the things she is now pointing at as necessary.

    • They should do both yes. But I see this as them doing what is atleast possible. Sometimes rolling back laws has to be taken in slow creeping steps. The socialist gun grabbers understand this all too well. It’s their primary and most effective strategy. Although they are no longer content to slowly grind away our rights. Me thinks they are getting a tad bit impatient.

      • >> But I see this as them doing what is atleast possible.

        I very much doubt that legislating gun rights in DC from above (esp. when the mast majority of locals are clearly opposed) is easier than saying that federal offices throughout the country must obey the local gun laws.

    • D.C. is technically a federal facility. So they should pass one act that does it all.

      Call it the “We Finally Looked Up Infringed in the Dictionary Act of 2015″.

  2. She can make this statement after pointing out in the very last sentence that her constituents have no representation, and that the entire city is basically one huge “federal facility.” That says it all, right there.

  3. Conclusively demonstrating the even a total moron may be correct for 120seconds per day.
    ““If Senator Rubio and Representative Jordan are concerned about the reach of the Second Amendment in the United States, there are many opportunities in the federal sector where current law bans their own constituents from possessing guns”

    The remainder is the typical retarded bilge she spews. The demtard chicks in congress set a very very low bar for competency but why are the ______-American broads SO damn willfully idiotic and useless? Is it one more product of the “Great Society”.

  4. Oh I see, denying a person’s right using mob rule is the mob’s “democratic right”. How did that work for her when voting rights were based on gender and skin color?

  5. Because Eleanor, the District abridges my rights as a Northern Virginia resident to carry the means of self defense if I choose to go into downtown. You would be surprised how much revenue the District loses because affluent Northern Virginians won’t go there.

      • Not completely true. The Federal government does not close the District’s deficit. If that were true then DC wouldn’t have to levy taxes. The Federal payment amounts to a subsidy for lost tax revenue.

  6. DC is democratic?

    So, the citizens can vote on gun laws… One person, one vote?

    I guess we better tell the representatives to pack it up and update resumes, cause DC is a democracy now.

  7. It’s a good thing she is a non voting member of congress, she doesn’t even know the difference between a democracy and a constitutional republic. She can’t even park a car.

  8. My solution would be to reduce the size of DC to encompass the Capital, White House, Mall and congressional and senate offices. The rest of the land and citizens would become residents of MD or VA as appropriate. There should be no “resident” of DC. The inhabitants should maintain residency of the state they represent or were elected from.

      • We don’t need any part of DC in Virginia. The DC suburbs have already turned the Va government into a liberal heaven. Take away Northern Virginia and Va would be a better place to live.

    • For the time being, leave the limits of DC alone. Just move the seat of federal government to central Montana. Do it in secret, or Montana will secede rather than having those pukes as residents. 10 years later worry about the disgusting slum that DC would be (is).

      • Given the way Montana likes to vote for Democrats, are you sure Montana would secede?

        More seriously, it might take a constitutional amendment to move the seat of government, since DC was created in the constitution for the purpose of being the seat.

    • I agree, dh34. However, to do this properly would require a constitutional amendment, unless you want an officially uninhabited district to have three electoral votes. (The only possible voters would be permanent homeless.) I’ll go one step further. Build apartments in the shrunken district and require congresscritters (including both senators and reps) to live in them, and reduce their salaries to account for the free housing. That way the only people who are actually living in the district are people who officially reside somewhere else anyway. At that point you could get rid of DC taxation since it’s the Fed Gov’s job to maintain the capitol, white house, etc. anyway.

  9. While on one hand she does have a valid point with respect to federal laws that violate the second amendment, I don’t think she fully grasps our form of government. We have a constitutional republic; not a democracy. The constitution trumps the “democratic rights” of the people. Exercise of democracy is subject to the Rule of Law, as defined in the constitution.

    • Democrats prefer the term ‘Democracy’; say it often and it may become true. One party, majority rules; the Constitution is obsolete, don’t you know? At least the parts the Dems find burdensome to their agenda.

      Just ask Obama.

      As an aside: I wonder when Holmes Norton last made a visit to the dentist?

  10. “I urge them to turn their attention to the federal ban on guns in federal facilities.”

    I do a agree with this part.

    • Indeed.

      Before the recent spate of court decisions explicitly “incorporating” the second amendment, there was some argument as to whether it applied to the states (I was on the side of those who thought it did). But there was no argument about it applying to the US government. Yet what did we have? No guns in post offices, national parks, and military bases. (Military bases?!?! Really?) The most egregious and habitual violator of the 2nd amendment is the Federal government, with regard to its own facilities.

      Unfortunately for its residents, DC is basically a federal government facility.

    • That statement is just a distraction.

      No reason not to take a chapter out of the anti’s playbook; chip away, a little here, a little there.

      Divide the infringers. By taking on smaller units at a time, in this case the liberal snake pit called D.C. It’s easier to limit and overcome resistance that way.

      If the Dems who control all of D.C. hadn’t created the grossly unjust “…hurdles to gun ownership in the District”, which they continue to contrive, they wouldn’t be receiving the special attention Rubio, Jordan and the Republicans are giving them with the Second Amendment Enforcement Act.

      The Bill’s sponsors’ home states have nothing to do with it; their states are already much more 2A friendly than D.C, regardless of Federal Building security restrictions within the respective sates. ‘Madam Sherlock’ is simply trying to obfuscate the D.C. anti-gun infringement issue with her deflection.

      That the bill can be read to include some federal buildings in D.C., as alleged by ‘Madam Sherlock’, does not change the fact that D.C. Democrats have erected huge legal barriers to keeping and bearing arms by residents and visitors to the District. These Democrat antis have run amok with their prohibitions to keeping and bearing arms within the D.C., and must be reined in.

      THAT is the point of the Second Amendment Enforcement Act!

  11. Hey DC is a screwy part of the US. We should tell them they can cancel the bill of rights in DC and leave the rest of the US alone.

  12. That’s cute. She’s too stupid to realize that DC falls under the purview of said Representatives and Senators.

  13. I agree … our federal government should end the ban on firearms in both Washington D.C. and in all federal facilities.

    • Hell, I can get 100’s, maybe 1000’s of damned good referrals for that job based on her qualifications! Take me! Take ME…EEE!
      .
      But NO O! She gets the job because she’s an old, black (and probably disabled), woman.
      .
      It’s discrimination, I say! DISCRIMINATION!
      .

  14. Another black traitor to her race, not to mention the country. Nothing new there. Subverting blacks’ firearms freedom is just another angle in pervasive black on black crime.

    • But, but, but what will “Liberal-us Progress-EVIL-us” and their Sheeple-People followers do without VICTIMS?
      .
      VICTIMS are their life-blood. Without them they have no purpose in life. No reason to exist. If they cannot find them lying in the street, they must create them! They cannot help themselves but to follow their genetically coded instincts.
      .
      It is their “Manifest Destiny”!
      .
      .

  15. I always thought the purpose of DC was to be a federal facility, regardless of the reasons anyone would choose to live there.

  16. So let me get this straight… she is advocating that certain senators take away the “democratic rights” of people in other districts, just not in her district. So in theory, if gun rights were restored on military bases and in federal facilities outside of D.C., she would be totally fine with it. Even though the citizens in, say, the states of Maryland or California, might object to guns being allowed in their federal buildings. So much for their “democratic rights.”

  17. She must be the ugliest woman on the face of the Earth. Ugly enough to stop a speeding Mack truck or deflect a bullet. Close seconds are the Hildebeast, Barbara Boxer, and Rosa DeLauro!

  18. Well, she raises a great point all while failing to realize that the federal building ban and the DC issues are not mutually exclusive.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *