Banning Guns in DC

I hope our forefathers are having a chuckle at our expense. In setting up the framework of our nation, some of the 'rules' they set down in the Bill of Rights and Constitution are so vague or subject to interpretation that it's no wonder that over two-hundred years later we're still having arguements about what does and doesn't apply under the Constitution. Chief among these arguements at times is the second amendment which deals with the 'Right to Bear Arms'. What's at particular issue on this case right now is the fact that the District of Columbia (DC) has a handgun ban in place in an apparent effort to curb crime and violence within the city. What some law-abiding citizens argue is that this violates their Constitutional right to own and keep handguns as a means of protection.

What those against the efforts to repeal the ban state is that in the Constitutional wording there is mention of the fact that arms should be in the hands of a well-regulated militia. Now as current enlistment (and re-enlistment) numbers show, there aren't too many people rushing to sign up for the National Guard or military these days and gun-owning associations (besides perhaps the National Rifle Association) are viewed as possible extremist group activities or possible terrorism groups. Now I'm sure that most people in the city who want to be able to own handguns legally are not looking to become one-man Charles Bronson "Death Wish" dealing individuals looking to clean up the streets. I'm sure for the most part, all of them are law-abiding citizens who are looking to defend themselves against potential threats. It comes back to the Cold War principles I guess. If my enemy has X number of weapons, I should have X+1 so that I will ensure that I wipe him out. I guess in this way, proponents of repealing the gun ban argue that if my enemies have guns, I should be allowed to have them too.

Again, I see the logic in this arguement and I agree that based on the interpretation of the Constitution, we should protect this right. However, I tend to get a bit weary when some proponents of gun rights push for the ownership and allowance of heavy assault weapons. When the assault weapons ban was allowed to expire sometime back, I was disappointed simply because I don't understand the need for those outside the military to own such weapons. In places like Iraq and such it was a requirement. People would openly carry rifles like AK-47s and such simply because it was necessary. The last time I looked, we don't live in a war zone and don't have people running around with heavy weapons like that. The only people who do (and should be having these weapons) are the police and military. What's the need for the average Joe to be packing enough firepower to hold of an army?

I think the push to repeal the ban on guns stems from the fact that this is something that is written into our Constitution and that this law has now become so ingrained in the country's collective mindset that the very thought of repealing or changing this law is unfathomable. People will point and argue that guns are a necessary tool to defend one's self. After incidents like those at Columbine and Virginia Tech, gun supporters argue that had even one student been allowed to carry a gun, those tragedies could have been avoided. Had that been the case, who's to say that the average fight in schools wouldn't end up like the Gunfight at the OK Corral as opposed to the last Rocky movie? Owning a gun doesn't necessarily make one safer, it just increases the likelihood of something bad happening. Should DC ban guns? Well they are an independent entity within the nation and still privy to the Constitution but if they can put forth a solid arguement as to why they should reinterpret the Second Amendment then by all means let them do so. If gun owners don't like it or don't agree with it, they can appeal it the way they have been trying but they also should look at the other side of the arguement (as should the DC government) and decide which arguement is strongest.