The Washington Post continues its campaign to degrade and destroy Americans’ natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. This time, they’ve published a disarmament dietribe [sic] by Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Colbert I. King. Mr. King uses the occasion of a drive-by shooting that nearly took-out a two-year-old at the Under the Sun salon to celebrate D.C.’s illegal gun culture — if that’s the right word. Here, you tell me . . .
It was another moment in the life of a city where shots are fired almost as frequently as clocks tick.
That’s because of guns. Have we got guns.
We have revolvers, rifles, shotguns, derringers and loads of pistols, with calibers of all kinds. Name it, we got it: 9mm, .22-caliber, .38-caliber, .40-caliber, .45-caliber, .380-caliber, .357-caliber, .32-caliber and .25-caliber. The caliber of choice, however, is 9mm.
How do I know this? Because the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) said so in its report on firearms recovered and traced in the District in 2014.
The illegal firearms in our nation’s capital have been used in assaults, drug deals, robberies, burglaries, sex crimes and, of course, homicides.
We have enough guns in the District to successfully conquer nations.
But not enough guns to defend innocent life, thanks to the District’s unconstitutional, inherently discriminatory dare I say racist permitting process.
As for the nation conquering ability of those guns, I reckon it wold require some pretty capable soldiers behind the trigger. Just as it takes some pretty heinous gangland soldiers to use guns to shoot and kill each other and the occasional innocent bystander.
The prevalence of guns is stunning.
That’s how a shooting in the street can victimize a toddler inside a hair salon with his mother by his side.
More guns equals more crime! Even if we accept this unproven foundational belief shared by gun control advocates, isn’t it equally true that less criminals equals less crime? Given that removing guns from criminals is a tricky business, shouldn’t we focus on removing criminals?
I know: I’m going way out there on that one. So WTH. Given that passing new laws to prevent criminals from obtaining guns in the first place (a.k.a., gun control) imperils Americans’ gun rights, why not use existing laws to stop criminals from obtaining guns in the first place?
I’m pleased to report that Mr. King isn’t miles away from this idea — although he fails spectacularly at the final furlong.
The shooters can’t do what they do without help. Many are aided and abetted by gun dealers who exploit legal loopholes to supply the weapons used to shoot up the Georgia Avenues in our city.
Going after unscrupulous gun sellers with a better background-check system and more federal agents, as President Obama wants to do, might help keep lethal weapons out of the hands of the lawbreakers terrorizing D.C. neighborhoods.
Anyone who supplies a firearm to a prohibited person like, say, the criminals who shot the two-year-old, is committing a crime. As we’ve pointed out before, the people giving bad guys guns aren’t “exploiting a loophole.” They’re breaking the law. Maybe we should arrest and imprison them too? Just thinking out loud . . .
While we’re at it what exactly is a “better background system,” how is it better (i.e., more effective) and how would this new system “go after” “unscrupulous gun sellers”? Not specified. Because guns.
As Mr. King closes his polemic, he ALMOST gets it. Again. He’s SO CLOSE. Like this . . .
But let’s not lose focus: The principal sources of the gun violence plaguing this city are the people pulling the triggers.
They do it by getting their dangerous hands on something most D.C. residents neither want nor need: guns.
Just ask the mother of that 2-year-old.
OK, sure. I’d like to hear her response. Now, can we ask those D.C. residents who do want or need guns — to defend themselves against those “dangerous hands” — if they, law-abiding folks that they are, can get one? Because I’m sure Mr. King supports the Second Amendment. Right?