EDITORIAL: Post- and pre-1976 gun ban

District of Columbia Murder Rate 1966 - 2006 ['gun ban' takes effect in 1976] http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/dccrime.htm Year Population Murder 1966 * 808000 * 141 1967 * 809000 * 178 1968 * 809000 * 195 1969 * 798000 * 287 (Pop. starts decline) 1970 * 756510 * 221 1971 * 741000 * 275 1972 * 748000 * 245 1973 * 746000 * 268 1974 * 723000 * 277 1975 * 716000 * 235 1976 * 702000 * 188 ('Gun ban' enacted) 1977 * 690000 * 192 1978 * 674000 * 189 1979 * 656000 * 180 1980 * 635233 * 200 1981 * 636000 * 223 1982 * 631000 * 194 1983 * 623000 * 183 1984 * 623000 * 175 1985 * 626000 * 147 1986 * 626000 * 194 1987 * 622000 * 225 (Murder rate starts rising sharply, while population continues decline) 1988 * 620000 * 369 1989 * 604000 * 434 1990 * 606900 * 472 1991 * 598000 * 482 1992 * 589000 * 443 1993 * 578000 * 454 ("gentrification" in the projects starts - moving the "problem" out of the city) 1994 * 570000 * 399 1995 * 554000 * 360 1996 * 543000 * 397 1997 * 529000 * 301 1998 * 523000 * 260 1999 * 519000 * 241 2000 * 572059 * 239 2001 * 573822 * 231 2002 * 569157 * 264 2003 * 557620 * 249 2004 * 554239 * 198 2005 * 582049 * 195 2006 * 581530 * 169 So, when COMPARING 1976 TO 2006, there were 19 less murders after the population had FALLEN by 120,470. Some 'decline', eh? Not to mention all those years when the murder rate had a HUGE spike....

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that ORIGINAL RIGHT OF SELF-DEFENSE which is PARAMOUNT to ALL positive forms of government . . . The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms..." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #28. "The opinion of the Federalist has always been considered as of great authority. It is a complete commentary on our Constitution; and is appealed to by all parties in the questions to which that instrument has given birth. Its intrinsic merit entitles it to this high rank; and the part two of its authors performed in framing the constitution, put it very much in their power to explain the views with which it was framed..." - Chief Justice John Marshall, U.S. Supreme Court, Cohens v. Virginia (1821). "Also, the conditions and circumstances of the period require a finding that while the stated purpose of the right to arms was to secure a well-regulated militia, the RIGHT TO SELF-DEFENSE WAS ASSUMED by the Framers." - Chief Justice John Marshall, U.S. Supreme Court. [As quoted in Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243, 251 (1846); State v. Dawson, 272 N.C. 535, 159 S.E.2d 1, 9 (1968).] "The defence of one’s self, justly called the primary law of nature, is NOT, NOR can it be abrogated by ANY regulation of municipal law. This principle of defence is not confined merely to the person; it extends to the liberty and the property of a man: it is not confined merely to his own person; it extends to the persons of all those, to whom he bears a peculiar relation -- of his wife, of his parent, of his child, of his master, of his servant: nay, it extends to the person of every one, who is in danger; perhaps, to the liberty of every one, whose liberty is unjustly and forcibly attacked. It becomes humanity as well as justice." - James Wilson, 'Of the Natural Rights of Individuals', 1790-1792 (Signed the Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution, Congressman, Delegate to the Constitutional Convention and U.S. Supreme Court Justice). "From among the rights RETAINED by our policy, we have selected those of SELF DEFENSE or BEARING ARMS, of conscience, and of free inquiry, for two purposes; one, to shew the vast superiority of our policy, in being able to keep natural rights necessary for liberty and happiness, OUT of the hands of governments; the other, to shew that this ability is the effect of its principles, and beyond the reach of Mr. Adams’s system, or of any other, unable to reserve to the people, and to withhold from governments, a variety of rights." - John Taylor, Revolutionary Soldier and U.S. Senator, (1792 – 94, 1803, 1822 – 24). [An Inquiry into the Principles and Policy of the Government of the United States: Section the Sixth; THE GOOD MORAL PRINCIPLES OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES, (1814).]

Now that the court has recognized that that individuals DO have the right to own firearms, I want to know what they think the word "infringed" means. If my right can't be infringed how do they justify any gun control laws at all? Just curious.

All the problems would be solved if we had criminal penalties for depriving citizens of their Second Amendment rights. Put Lanier, Daley, Nagin, etc. in jail where they belong. It should be a crime on the order of treason to violate a Second Amendment right, after all it is a human rights violation. Anyone who claims the Second Amendment doesn't guarantee an individual right is a liar. It has always been clear, they just don't like it. There is nothing I despise more in this world than a liberal moron.