If you haven't heard by now, Democratic leaders in the House of Representatives have blocked consideration of the "DC Voting Rights Bill." This means that people living in the District of Columbia still won't be represented in the House of Representatives, despite the fact that the Senate voted to give DC a voice in Congress last year.
The sticking point? Language in the bill that would have liberalized DC gun-control laws.
You may have valid arguments against the DC Voting Rights Bill that deal with Constitutional issues, Utah's demand for an at-large House seat, etc. Your humble Webmaster understands completely. But for Eleanor Holmes Norton to throw her fellow DC denizens under the bus - not to mention an actual seat on Capitol Hill - because she considers the proposed restoration of Second Amendment rights "egregious" is completely beyond me.
DC Council Chairman Vincent Gray has also weighed in on the demise of the voting bill: "I've got to look people in the face, and when they look back at me, I want them to respect me. I honestly believe they will not respect me when they hear I traded their safety for a vote."
As a reminder, DC's 1975 edict prohibiting civilian ownership of most handguns did not prevent the District from enduring high murder rates in the early 1990s, peaking at 479 homicides within the District during 1991. These crime rates, however, were most likely the result of the crack cocaine epidemic that seized DC during those years, not the product of black-market gun sales in our nation's Capitol. And while violent crime rates have indeed been trending lower in DC over the past few years, it seems disingenuous that Chairman Gray would raise the old canard of "safety" as justification for denying DC residents not only their Second Amendment rights, but also equal footing with the rest of America under Article I, Section 2 of the United States Constitution.
When you look at the situation in DC from this angle, how does Gray think he's going to earn the respect of those who think he cut off the District's nose to spite its face?
It seems that we're hearing the same old exhortation again - "Wait." Advocates of healthcare reform who pushed for a public option (if not single-payer) are being told to "wait." Opponents of the current "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy in our nation's military are also being told to "wait." Some choice words from Martin Luther King's Letter from Birmingham Jail come to mind:
...when you are forever fighting a degenerating sense of "nobodiness" then you will understand why we find it difficult to wait. There comes a time when the cup of endurance runs over, and men are no longer willing to be plunged into the abyss of despair. I hope, sirs, you can understand our legitimate and unavoidable impatience.
King made these remarks to illustrate the plight of American citizens of African descent dealing with institutionalized racism and segregation. But doesn't this same sentiment also apply to a growing number of Democrats, regardless of their race, color, creed, ethnicity, or sexual orientation, who are growing increasingly tired of seeing real, fundamental, progressive change being stymied by representatives of their own party?
You may disagree with me, but I believe the citizens of Washington, DC deserve a voice - and their Constitutional rights. By blocking the latter, they are denied the former. They deserve better than to be kept waiting for change to come to their city. Give them what is rightfully theirs. Now.
Read the original blog post (with links) on the MySpace page for Amendment II Democrats!