« Phill Kline and Kelsey Smith case | Main | Why publish Michelle Malkin? »

June 28, 2008

Handgun hypocrisy

The U.S. Supreme Court has found that the District of Columbia acted unconstitutionally 32 years ago by enacting a ban on all handguns within the district. It was, they said, far too sweeping.

Yet, they issued this opinion from a building in which no private citizen may carry a handgun for any purpose. There are metal detectors at the doors and armed guards preventing each one of us from exercising the “right” the majority of justices claim we possess in every other part of the district. This is the height of hypocrisy.

In effect, they are saying, “You can all fight it out with guns out there. We’ll stay behind these stone walls where your guns are prohibited. If you try to bring one in, we’ll kill you.”

If the justices want to allow handguns in the District of Columbia, then let’s allow them everywhere in the district, including the Supreme Court building, the Capitol building, on White House tours, the whole nine yards.

If the rest of us have to be subjected to criminals with guns, so should Supreme Court justices, presidents and members of Congress.

Bruce Lindgren



The one exception would be to allow C&C for NCPs.



I hope this decision influences lawmakers to allow more and better safety appliances for firearms, like sound suppressors. a silencer. To have one attached to a handgun for home protection makes 100% sense. You don't fire a handgun at a range without ear protection, why expose yourself to damage in an emergency. Many states allow them, the recent law in Ks opens the door for them there.

It is a safety issue, pure and simple.


You don't need to carry "protection" when you visit the White House or Supreme Court because once past the metal detectors, there are no evil, armed people there to do you harm. That's why it makes sense to leave the Glock in the car.

It's only in the rest of the world that we have to carry firearms to protect ourselves from all the crazy pistol packin' people.

Bruce just doesn't understand. What a MAROON!!!


I don't fault The Star for printing the letter. They should print letters from all kinds of people on lot's of subjects. Then when you get one as stupid as this one, we can laugh. To quote the great philosopher, Bugs Bunny "What a maroon!"


The right to bear arms in your homes and for your personal protection. I do not see why someone needs to carry a weapon in a commercial office building or public building fpor that matter.

T. Hanson

Wow.. I sense a tad bit of understanding of the blogers on this topic... Bruce is an idiot.


Bruce is a moron, and the letters editor does resdership a disservice by printing his letter


Bruce, you get a big, "What???"

News Flash - criminals have always had guns. They don't care what laws are on the books (if they did, they wouldn't be 'criminals'). This ruling only provides LAW ABIDING citizens the means to even the scale when it comes to protecting themselves. In case you didn't know, 95% of the households in America cannot afford to have metal detectors at each door and 24hr armed guards...


The letter is a complete misrepresentation of the decision. I assume that the "Letters" editors had to know this, unless RCL now holds the job, but they printed the letter despite that knowledge. The decision held that the 2nd Amendment affirmed an individual right. That right includes owning a loaded hand gun in your home for protection.


Bruce is one of those individuals who would control others. Jerk.

About KansasCity.com | About the Real Cities Network | Terms of Use & Privacy Statement | About Knight Ridder | Copyright