Prometheus 6

1.  Um...DC IS unique.  It's not a state, nor is it IN a state.  Unique situations call for unique solutions.  It would be very easy for the District to effectively ban guns by simply preventing any gun shops from opening and refusing to sign off on FFL applications.  This provision prevents the virulently anti-gun city council from back-dooring a gun ban in this manner.

2.  "Gun show loophole" is a manufactured, factually inaccurate term.  The provision that honors the right of private citizens to freely sell their personally owned property without government permission or intervention was intentionally included in federal law to protect privacy and property rights...freedom is not a loophole.  This intentional provision in the law applies equally everywhere...it has nothing to do with gun shows.  Finally, your contention that this proposal "creates" this  faux "loophole" is patently false.  This is a longstanding provision in federal law that was included when the law was enacted in 1968.

3.  Patently false.  Only ONE state requires registration of firearms...Hawaii.  Six states have limited registration schemes: New Jersey, Illinois, and Massachusetts have no official firearms registrations, but require licenses to own any gun, thus they have a list of (legal) firearms owners, if not a registration of firearms themselves.   New York only requires Licenses for pistol ownership.  California has no official registration, but all sales are recorded by Police.  Washington state similarly requires police records, but only for handgun sales.

By my count 43 states have no registration requirements at all and of those 43, 33 of them pre-empt local ordinances which means that the cities within the state cannot institute their own registration schemes.  Granted, the terms "many states" and "most big cities" are very subjective, but in my humble opinion, they are inaptly applied here.

4.  Why shouldn't it be?  Whether you agree with it or not, keeping and bearing arms is a right protected by the Constitution of the United States as recently recognized by the Supreme Court. Exercising rights should NOT be considered criminal in and of itself.

5.  Even if .50 caliber rifles, without using Armor Piercing ammunition (which is illegal under federal law) could "pierce armor plating up to a mile away" (doubtful and depends upon your definition of "armor plating"), so what?  Are these rifles used often for this purpose?  If this is such a threat, why hasn't it happened already?  You actually think that the only thing currently preventing terrorists or criminals from using these rifles in such a way is because it's illegal to possess them in DC?  Don't be ridiculous.

6.  As stated before:  DC is not a state.  If any place in the US should fall ONLY under federal law, it is the federal preserve known as the District of Columbia...which is the ONLY federal preserve spelled out in the US Constitution and over which the Congress has explicit legislative authority. Furthermore, current federal gun laws and regulations encompass close to 200 standard letter size pages (front and back) of three column, small print, single spaced text.  Such an expanse can hardly be rationally called "virtually no regulation".

7.  Voluntarily seeking medical attention is grounds for suspending rights?  In what alternative universe?  The fact is that sufferers of mental illness are no more likely to be violent than the general population. In fact, some information indicates that the mentally ill are at higher risk of being victimized than the general population; and, therefore, are in greater need of an effective means of self defense.

8.  Again, the congress is explicitly granted legislative authority over DC.  This was specifically because DC has no state government oversight.  The only way that can change is through a Constitutional Amendment.  Considering the penchant for the DC city government to patently ignore the rights of its residents, even in the face of specific orders from the Supreme Court of the United States...that seems entirely appropriate to me.

Again, the congress is explicitly granted legislative authority over DC.  This was specifically because DC has no state government oversight.  The only way that can change is through a Constitutional Amendment.

Yes, of course, and we all know that Congress has never, ever abused its authority or ignored Supreme Court rulings with respect to the rights of the residents of the District of Columbia. I won't dwell on the long history of Congress using its authority to permit, for example, the maintenance of a racially segregated school district. Let's consider at a lower frequency, for example, Congress' longstanding refusal to allow the taxi drivers operating in the District to use meters as opposed to a zone-based fee system that chiefly benefited members of Congress, their staffs, lobbyists and other government employees many of whom did not live in the District. This may seem to be a trivial matter but not for working folks who were trying to earn a living and raise their families.   

1...It would be very easy for the District to effectively ban guns by simply preventing any gun shops from opening and refusing to sign off on FFL applications.

And yet in all these years they have never even tried it, proving your hysteria about the city council being virulently ant-gun unfounded. Indeed, you strike me a virulently pro-gun.

2..."Gun show loophole" is a manufactured, factually inaccurate term.  The provision that honors the right of private citizens to freely sell their personally owned property without government permission or intervention was intentionally included in federal law to protect privacy and property rights...freedom is not a loophole.

The Constitution says you can own and bear arms. It does not say you can sell them freely. Guns being sold interstate, the Feds have every right to license them and control who sells them and under what conditions.

And Rep. Holmes complaind about a loophole that can't be closed.

3.  Patently false.  Only ONE state requires registration of firearms...Hawaii.

Registration, limited registration, licensing...dosn't matter, you hate them all. They all will let Obama track you down a personally confiscate all your guns. He's even going to tke the gun nut stickers off your blog!

4.  Why shouldn't it be?

Ask the folks that got the shit shot out of them this past week. Oh, I'm sorrry, they're dead.

5....You actually think that the only thing currently preventing terrorists or criminals from using these rifles in such a way is because it's illegal to possess them in DC?  Don't be ridiculous.

You think they could have caught the D.C. snipers if they didn't have to hide their weaponry? If even 1 in 10 D.C. residents carried rifles around like a walking stick? It's a matter of keeping the odds under control.

6...Furthermore, current federal gun laws and regulations encompass close to 200 standard letter size pages (front and back) of three column, small print, single spaced text.  Such an expanse can hardly be rationally called "virtually no regulation".

Ensign's amendment will remove DC from the juristdiction of those laws. And if Congress is so into keeping those second amendment rights intact, why didn't they do anything about DC's Firearms Registration Amendment Act of 2008?

Adopted by the D.C. Council, this legislation rewrites the District's regulation of firearms in response to the Supreme Court's historic ruling ending the city's decades-old ban on handgun possession. Among its provisions are requirements for gun registration and safety training and rules making it harder for those with a history of violence to own guns. At any point during the mandatory review period, Congress could have acted to change or reject the measure. Its power of review is absolute and it did . . . nothing.

Instead, Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) targeted the city's cherished voting rights bill.

They don't give a shit about your issues. They want to block D.C residents from voting. If anything, the DC voting bill will fail because of this amendmend, and the Firearms Registration Amendment Act of 2008 will be local law, with Congress' blessing.

7.  Voluntarily seeking medical attention is grounds for suspending rights?  In what alternative universe?

In John Ensign's home state of Nevada.

8.  Again, the congress is explicitly granted legislative authority over DC.

See point 6.

PTcruiser: The supreme law of the land...the US Constitution...grants the congress legislative authority over DC.  Congress may abuse that authority and, I'm sure, has at times...but the authority still exists unless the Constitution is amended to remove it.  In other words, your argument did not address the point.

Prometheus:

1.  They haven't tried it?  How many gun shops are there in DC? If you answered "none" you were right.  Now, explain to me how DC residents are supposed to exercise their right to own a firearm if they can't buy them in DC...but can't legally buy them anywhere else either?  The "virulently anti-gun" comment could be hysteria...or, it could be a reaction to the Mayor and city council's actions and public statements.  As far as me being virulently pro-gun...guilty as charged...as evidenced by MY actions and public statements.

2.  Sorry, "the feds" don't have rights.  They have powers granted by the people.  Only individuals have rights. That minor detail aside, your rebuttal doesn't address my point.  The point is that the term "loophole" refers to a way to get around a law.  The ability of private citizens to sell their personal property without interference...whether you consider it a "right" or not...was specifically and intentionally written into the law.  That simply does not fit the definition of "loophole"...and it still doesn't have anything to do with gun shows.

3.  Nice straw man...again, doesn't address my point.

4.  Were you even trying to make a point with that one?  You could be saying that it is the fault of lawful gun owners that criminals have and use guns...but I'm not too sure.

5.  Have you even read the amendment that you are so opposed to?  How about this part:

"Nothing in the previous two sentences shall be construed to prohibit the District of Columbia from regulating or prohibiting the carrying of firearms by a person, either concealed or openly, other than at the person's dwelling place, place of business, or on other land possessed by the person."

In other words, your argument is...again...a straw man.

6.  And again, it's apparent that you didn't bother to read the amendment:

"Nothing in this section or any other provision of law shall authorize, or shall be construed to permit, the Council, the Mayor, or any governmental or regulatory authority of the District of Columbia to prohibit, constructively prohibit, or unduly burden the ability of persons not prohibited from possessing firearms under Federal law from acquiring, possessing in their homes or businesses, or using for sporting, self-protection or other lawful purposes, any firearm neither prohibited by Federal law nor subject to the National Firearms Act."

In other words,  you're wrong.  The amendment absolutely does not exempt DC from federal firearms laws.  As far as their reasoning goes...I won't presume to know the minds of others.  I don't know how the DC ordinance review process works...perhaps it has something to do with the fact that anti-gun Democrats are currently holding the leadership positions in congress?  Perhaps the pro-gun Democrats and Republicans couldn't get the leadership to address the issue through the DC ordinance review process?  I don't know and won't presume to assume.

7.  So because Mr. Ensign hails from a state that has a policy that is not directly addressed in his amendment, he's what?  A hypocrite?  Is every legislator from every state required to agree with every law in that state?  Hyperbole aside, the simple fact that some states have enacted a particular law or policy doesn't make it an effective law or policy.

8.  Ditto.

Might be fun to argue a while, but this ain't about second amendment rights. I could play (DC residents get guns, whether its from a gun store or Walmart or mail order...ifi you don't acknowledge the Constitutionally declare responsibility of the Federal governmenr to oversee interstate commerce, you can't demand recognition of a Constitutionally declared second amendment right, etc, etc), but it would distract from the reality that the whole discussion is a tactic to undermine the creation of a new, most-likely-Democratic seat in the House.

DC falls victim to that sort of crap all the time..

I can see why you don't want to argue the Second Amendment issues...you don't understand them.

The few Walmarts in the country that still sell guns are, for the purposes of this discussion, gun stores.  There are no stores in DC that sell guns.  Period.

It is illegal to purchase a firearm through "mail order" without it going through an FFL holder.  Firearms ordered through the mail (or over the internet) must be shipped to a gun store and the FFL holder at the gun store then transfers the firearm to the purchaser after the required background check.  Since there are no gun stores in DC...it is impossible for a resident of DC to legally purchase a gun through mail order or the internet.  Again...this is why it is necessary for residents of DC to be allowed to purchase guns from gun stores in Virginia and Maryland.  There simply aren't any in DC...and if the DC city council has its way, there never will be.

Of course I acknowledge the Constitutional power of congress to regulate interstate commerce.  That Constitutional power is exactly what enables them to permit DC residents to purchase firearms across state lines.  The power to "regulate" includes the power to ALLOW interstate commerce, as well as the power to prevent it.

In your opinion, this whole issue is a tactic to undermine the DC voting rights act.

I disagree.  The DC Voting rights act not only provides for a "most-likely-Democrat" seat for DC, but also for a balancing "most-likely-Republican" seat.  There will be no net gain for either the Democrats or Republicans should the bill pass.

You also simply dismiss as if it were of no importance the bipartisan suppor that the Ensign amendment received in the Senate.  The Democrats are in the majority.  If this were strictly a partisan issue revolving around the extra, presumably democrat, member of congress, the vote would have been split down party lines and the amendment would have failed...or it would have at least been a lot closer than the filibuster-proof 62-36 vote it received.

The amendment also has strong bipartisan support in the house...which is why the bill has been tabled.  The house leadership knows that the bill would pass with the amendment.  Again, the democrats have a majority in the house so, if this were truly simply a partisan issue, that should not be a concern.

The bottom line is that the anti-gun house leadership hates gun rights more than they like the idea of another democrat house member or the idea of DC residents being represented in congress.  And that is exactly why this issue was brought as an amendment to this bill rather than as a stand alone.  It would win as a stand alone...if it were broght to the floor for a vote; but the house leadership would simply refuse to allow it to reach the floor.  The hope was that this bill was enough of a compromise...you know...that thing that gun banners are always crying for gun rights advocates to do...each side gets something out of the deal...that it at least had a chance of coming to the floor for a vote.

Unfortunately, it seems that preventing DC residents from being able to exercise their second amendment rights is more important to the democrat leadership than allowing them to gain representation in congress.  Some rights are apparently more important than others.

If I were a democrat, that would infuriate me.  But I'm not a democrat (I'm not a republican either for that matter)...so I basically just think it's par for the course.

Either way...none of that has anything to do with your original post...which is what I was debunking in my comments.  I would have never commented in the first place if the post had been about why the DC voting rights bill is good...it wasn't; it was about why the gun rights amendment is "bad".

I freely confess I don't get what second amendment activists are all worked up over. I mean, I think I'm a pretty reasonable guy. You're not the first guy who got to drop pro-gun rhetoric here. I've had discussions about it here, had four and five guys patting each other on the back for their mutually contradictory attacks. I've seen major proponents of second amendment rights feel the need to lie to garner support.

In the end, I find being a single issue person, looking at life through a pinhole, to be irrational unless you really have no other problems. I need to be sane. In this realm, the lack of sanity leads to stuff like this

...as graphically illustrated in "The Brooklyn Connection," Krasniqi returned to the US intent on using all the country's freedoms — above all its permissive gun laws — to outfit a guerrilla army. On one level, the tale of how Krasniqi raised and spent $30 million to arm and supply the upstart Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), whose resistance to Serbian dominance forced NATO and the UN to intervene, is a straightforward and remarkably candid account.

and this

F.B.I. officials maintain that they are hamstrung by laws and policies restricting the use of gun-buying records because of concerns over the privacy rights of gun owners.

At least 44 times from February 2004 to June, people whom the F.B.I. regards as known or suspected members of terrorist groups sought permission to buy or carry a gun, the investigation found.

In all but nine cases, the F.B.I. or state authorities who handled the requests allowed the applications to proceed because a check of the would-be buyer found no automatic disqualification like being a felon, an illegal immigrant or someone deemed "mentally defective," the report found.

In the four months after the formal study ended, the authorities received an additional 14 gun applications from terror suspects, and all but 2 of those were cleared to proceed, the investigation found. In all, officials approved 47 of 58 gun applications from terror suspects over a nine-month period last year, it found.

and this

A vast arms bazaar is rampant along the four border states, enabled by porous to nonexistent American gun laws. Straw buyers can pick up three or four high-powered war rifles from one of more than 6,600 border dealers and hand them off to smugglers. They easily return to Mexico, where gun laws are far less permissive.

Licensed dealers routinely recruit buyers with clean criminal records to foil weak laws and feed the deadly pipeline, according to a report by James C. McKinley Jr. in The Times. The countless unlicensed “gun enthusiasts” free to deal battlefield rifles at weekend shows, thanks to loophole-ridden laws, are a second source.

The federal government is allowed to only trace weapons used in crimes and has no idea of the full scope of the border trade, which accounts for 9 out of 10 recovered weapons.

None of this was intended by the guys what wrote the second amendment. Until everyone acknowledges the second amendment is no more absolute than the first,

Suffering will continue until governments recognize the obvious — that the vast majority of illicitly traded arms begin as legally produced weapons.

...we will continue to be the source of immense suffering and unnecessary destruction.

The supreme law of the land...the US Constitution...grants the congress legislative authority over DC.  Congress may abuse that authority and, I'm sure, has at times...but the authority still exists unless the Constitution is amended to remove it.  In other words, your argument did not address the point.

My point, which you quite obviously missed or chose to ignore, is that citing Congress' constitutional authority to oversee all District of Columbia matters is the refuge of a person who wants to view all events through an extremely narrow prism. The reality is that this proposed gun law has nothing to do with guns but everything to do with denying residents of the District the right to vote and have representation in Congress. The Constitution is not a fixed unchanging document. Anyone who argues that it is is simply trying to protect their own self-interest.    

My point, which you quite obviously missed or chose to ignore, is that citing Congress' constitutional authority to oversee all District of Columbia matters is the refuge of a person who wants to view all events through an extremely narrow prism.

Yes, and that prism is known as "the law".

The Constitution is not a fixed unchanging document. Anyone who argues that it is is simply trying to protect their own self-interest.

That's why the founders included a mechanism for changing it.  What is the "refuge" of people "simply trying to protect their own self-interest" is the insistence that the document can be interpreted to mean something that is clearly doesn't.  The insistenc that the meaning and intent of the contract can be "reinterpreted" without the messy and difficult amendment proceedure which is the only lawful way of changing the contract.  Basically, if it doesn't mean what it says...then it doesn't mean anything and we have no basis or foundation for (or restrictions on) our government.

"whatever power you give the State to do things FOR you carries with it the equivalent power to do things TO you.
--Albert Jay Nock

Please explain to me how "The Congress shall have Power...To exercise exlusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exeeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States..."  Can be creatively interpreted to mean anything other than what it clearly states.

You may not LIKE the Constitution...but it is, in fact, the supreme law of the land.  WISHING it said something different than what it says, doesn't make it so.  If you don't like it, petition your representatives to amend it.  Otherwise, the law is what the law is and no amount of wishful thinking changes that.

Whew...that was a lot of reading.

It seems to me that it's not the Second Amendment advocates that are all worked up.  It seems to me that the anti-gun side is who is worked up.  So worked up, in fact, that they are willing to scuttle the DC Voting Rights act completely rather than allow the Second Amendment rights of DC citizens to be protected.

I didn't see any "mutually contradictory attacks"...what I saw was several different individuals, civilly discussing a subject from varying viewpoints.  I realize that the anti-gun astroturf organiztions like to paint the "gun lobby" as some sort of nameless, faceless leviathan, populated by mindless bots in lockstep with one another.  Unfortunately for them, they're wrong.  The "gun lobby" actually consists of millions upon millions of independent thinkers from all walks of life, all parts of the political spectrum and all backgrounds.  As a result, there are necessarily going to be some differences amongst the outlooks of those throngs of people.

As far as the NRA "lying" to garner support, you will be hard pressed to prove that beyond a doubt.  They undeniably use hyperbole and incendiary rhetoric to stir the lethargic masses...and sometimes the conclusions they draw from the evidence they provide are a bit of a...stretch...but you'll be hard pressed to catch them in an out and out lie.

And, by the way, I do not support the tactics that they use.  I never have and I never will.  The fact that they do so does not, however invalidate any factual points that I, or anyone else, might raise.

I like your insinuations about the rationality and sanity of supporters of gun rights whom you assume are single issue people. Very inventive way to write off as crackpots those with whom you disagree without actually having to support the contention in any way.  What was that you said on the other thread about passive-aggressiveness not being your style?

Isn't it interesting that the evidence of Krasniqi's easy ability to violate federal gun laws is Krasniqi's own account of his actions?  Isn't it interesting that Krasniqi happens to be someone who rails against the very "lax gun laws" that he contends allowed him to support his countrymen?  Isn't it interesting that, although he freely admits and documents his illegal behavior, he's never been charged with a crime...even though the BATF did conduct an investigation?  Hmmmm.  But even if you assume his credibility impeccable and his story 100% factual...so what?  A criminal successfully broke the law.  It happens every day.  Congratulations, you just proved the point that all the laws in the world won't stop someone who doesn 't mind breaking them to accomplish their goals.

According to the FBI, only about 5 percent of the people on the watch lists are Americans; therefore, 95% of the people on these lists are already precluded from purchasing firearms in the US. Of the 5% of American citizens included in the lists, such notorious terrorists as Senator Ted Kennedy and Author James Moore have been identified. It is simply unconscionable to advocate suspending the rights of American citizens for no reason other than that someone, somewhere, decided, without any due process, judicial review or Constitutional protections, that the citizen's name should be placed on a watch list...especially a list that has been demonstrated to be so arbitrary, unreliable, and potentially capricous...and for which the grounds upon which someone is listed are held in secret.

And, finally, although an editorial may provide good entertainment, it is hardly a valid basis for setting public policy. I prefer to rely on resources that cite actual sources...not just some "journalist's" assumptions:

There's just one problem with the 90 percent "statistic" and it's a big one:

It's just not true.

In fact, it's not even close. The fact is, only 17 percent of guns found at Mexican crime scenes have been traced to the U.S.

What's true, an ATF spokeswoman told FOXNews.com, in a clarification of the statistic used by her own agency's assistant director, "is that over 90 percent of the traced firearms originate from the U.S."

But a large percentage of the guns recovered in Mexico do not get sent back to the U.S. for tracing, because it is obvious from their markings that they do not come from the U.S.

"Not every weapon seized in Mexico has a serial number on it that would make it traceable, and the U.S. effort to trace weapons really only extends to weapons that have been in the U.S. market," Matt Allen, special agent of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), told FOX News.

A Look at the Numbers

In 2007-2008, according to ATF Special Agent William Newell, Mexico submitted 11,000 guns to the ATF for tracing. Close to 6,000 were successfully traced -- and of those, 90 percent -- 5,114 to be exact, according to testimony in Congress by William Hoover -- were found to have come from the U.S.

But in those same two years, according to the Mexican government, 29,000 guns were recovered at crime scenes.

In other words, 68 percent of the guns that were recovered were never submitted for tracing. And when you weed out the roughly 6,000 guns that could not be traced from the remaining 32 percent, it means 83 percent of the guns found at crime scenes in Mexico could not be traced to the U.S.

With all that said...what does a self-admitted criminal smuggling guns to Kosovo, the FBI's desire to deny rights to citizens because they have a name similar to someone who may possibly at some time in their life have had some sort of tenuous relationship with someone who may or may not have been associated with a terrorist organization, and a few Mexican criminals taking full advantage of the lack of enforcement at the US-Mexican border by EITHER country, have to do with an amendment offered by a member of the body charged with legislatively administering the District of Columbia that denies the local government of DC the ability to restrict the recognized right of its residents to have the most effective means of self defense known to mankind availlable to them in their own homes?

BTW:  I think I just set some kind of record for run-on sentences there.  What do I win?

That's why the founders included a mechanism for changing it.  What is the "refuge" of people "simply trying to protect their own self-interest" is the insistence that the document can be interpreted to mean something that is clearly doesn't.

How likely are the residents of the District of Columbia to prevail in seeking redress from a legislative body that not only plays a central role in their efforts to amend the Constitution but seems quite vested in denying them their rights as citizens? Your appeal to the Constitution in this case seems quixotic.  

It seems to me that the anti-gun side is who is worked up.  So worked up, in fact, that they are willing to scuttle the DC Voting Rights act completely rather than allow the Second Amendment rights of DC citizens to be protected.

The Firearms Registration Amendment Act of 2008 was passed and accepted by Congress by NOT acting against it. Not even Ensign had a problem with it. So DC resident's second amendment rights.

Now we want people to be rational.

I didn't see any "mutually contradictory attacks"...what I saw was several different individuals, civilly discussing a subject from varying viewpoints.

...which agree in motivation but not content.

As a result, there are necessarily going to be some differences amongst the outlooks of those throngs of people.

As I said...

There's not coherant principle here, just a love of guns.

As far as the NRA "lying" to garner support, you will be hard pressed to prove that beyond a doubt.

This is, without a doubt, a lie.

I like your insinuations about the rationality and sanity of supporters of gun rights whom you assume are single issue people. Very inventive way to write off as crackpots those with whom you disagree without actually having to support the contention in any way.

That's all single issue voters. ALL of them. Not limited to gun folks at all.

What was that you said on the other thread about passive-aggressiveness not being your style?

Exactly that. I insult directly and clearly when it's intended.

See? I can argue this as long as you can. And it's silly because the bottom line is the Ensign Amendment, like the annually introduced Tiarht amendment, would lead to so many new deaths that neither man would pursue their amendments for the jurisdictions they live in. They bring this unnecessary crap for political purposes...like gay marriage, like the War on Christmas, it's just another wedge issue wielded by Republicans.

Don't worry, I'm not trying to convince you.  Like I said in the other thread, my posting is intended to present some counterpoints to internet wanderers who may stumble across this.

I have no illusions about your ability to accept plainly presented facts.

You have yet to rebut a single one of my points. What you've done is offer straw man arguments, change the subject (twice) and insinuate that anyone who disagress with you is irrational or insane.

Those things may seem convincing to you...but someone who is not quite so emotionally invested in their position will see right through it.

I'm sure you can continue using the same arguments repeatedly ad nauseum...but they are no more efficacious the last time you use them than they were the first time.

The facts simply are not on your side...as you have de-facto acknowledged by simply ignoring any point you couldn't address.  Ignoring the elephant in the room doesn't make it go away.

The bottom line is that, as the US Supreme court clearly ruled, the residents of DC have the right to keep and bear the types of arms "in common use" at this time in their own homes (at the minimum).  The DC government has done everything in its power to stymie the ability of its constituents to exercise that right.  It is absolutely and completely within the constitutional powers of congress to exercise legislative authority over the District of Columbia.  Whether you agree with their execution of this power over the years is irrelevant.  It is the law.

Although many Republicans believe the "DC Voting Rights Act" to be potentially unconstitutional, they were willing to compromise and vote for the bill as long as they...with the support of gun rights supporting Democrats...got something out of the "compromise" as well.  To that end, they exercised their legitimate legislative authority by offering an amendment which was accepted by a large, bipartisan majority.

It is the anti-gun minority...who happen to be the ranking members of the majority party...in congress that are holding up this legislation.  They have basically chosen to place their anti-gun agenda before the concerns of the residents of the District of Columbia.  As the leadership of the majority party, it is well within their authority to do so...but to try to pass blame for their reticence off onto the the specific senator that offered the amendment, or the "gun lobby" as a whole for that matter, is specious and false.  Senator Ensign would never have been able to get his amendment approved without biparstisan support.

The tabling of this legislation rests squarely on the shoulders of the Democrat leadership of the house and nowhere else.

In short: you are wrong on this issue plain and simple.  Your refusal to acknowledge this fact doesn't change the truth of it and anyone who reads this thread in a critical and open minded manner will see that.

With that...I bid you adeu.

Curt, I'm telling you the discussion here is not about the topic that's important to you, even though it brushes past that topic. I'm not taking you  seriously for that reason. No one who comes here regularly will.

How's that for a plainly stated fact?