Web Letters | The Nation

Web Letter

Washington, DC, should not have a representative in Congress. The Constitution does not provide for such, and unless they (our illustrious political leaders) are willing to amend the Constitution to allow same, things should stand as they are. If certain DC citizens feel they are entitled, they ain't--it is that simple. Want a representative, move to a state.

How dumb is it that in a district set up to house the national government there is this ludicrous debate about easy access to guns? Americans are getting dumber and dumber by the day. We pretend we are for individual rights, but we don't want none of them individuals deciding to smoke pot instead of gettin' drunk on booze (including beer), we don't want them individuals choosing their sexual preferences, we don't want them individuals choosing whether they have to carry a baby to term or not because we don't understand the difference between a baby and a fetus and the very people who create our deficits and can't balance a budget or adhere to one decry the poor performance of the financial sector which is nothing if not a reflection of our leaders. We are killing our kids in a war we shouldn't be in helping an ungracious population who can't get their act together. What a group.

Ted Robertson

Tulsa, OK

Mar 12 2009 - 5:44pm

Web Letter

As a subscriber and reader of The Nation, I greatly appreciate that The Nation is neither left nor right, liberal or conservative, but progressive.

The US Supreme Court has ruled on this subject, indicating the Second Amendment to the US Constitution is indeed a civil right.

However, the DC City council members didn't seem to get the message:

"After the Heller ruling, the D.C. city council passed a law requiring would-be gun owners to pay a registration fee, pass a 20-question multiple choice test, take a five-hour training course, undergo an invasive background check every six years, re-register any firearm every three years, and finally, submit all handguns for ballistics testing. Current D.C. law also bans an overwhelming majority of firearms commonly used for self-defense. This Ensign Amendment would also remedy that unjust practice." (NRA February 26, 2009)

The DC City Council's behavior may be viewed as representing special interests with narrow political perspectives. They are attempting to circumvent the basic civil right for law-abiding U.S. citizens to keep and bear arms by passing new laws that run counter to the intent of the Supreme Court's ruling.

Civil rights are not owned by Democrats, Republicans or any other party. Surveys of citizens consistently report that a large majority of Americans support the Second Amendment as a civil right.

Gary Marple

Boxborough, MA

Mar 12 2009 - 4:24pm

Web Letter

Interesting story, but has anyone considered a simple solution? Washington, DC, was originally part of several states. For residency, voting and taxation, simply designate the residents as citizens of those original states.

It is not that unlike when a state cedes land to the federal government for a military base.

Ah, way too simple a solution for Washington to even think of, much less consider.

Dave Lester

Weston, WV

Mar 12 2009 - 12:05am

Before commenting, please read our Community Guidelines.