[neverdem]

This is biased and problematic, to say the least.

[kingu]

I love how details are only provided when it benefits the author and blanket denials where it might prove the author wrong. Standard dinosaur media tactics.

[wastoute]

Only a lib would say that there was a “25% drop in gun crime” in one paragraph and a “7% increase” in the next. I would sure like to see the study from ‘91 she quotes. I bet it is more FOS than the “43 times more likely” crap we saw in the last run on guns.

[The Grammarian]

This is biased and problematic, to say the least.

You can say that again.

If the gun ban is struck down, the District will very likely see an increase in firearms ownership and perhaps a rise in burglaries by criminals trying to obtain guns.

I love this line. "If we make it legal to own guns, criminals will commit MORE crimes in order to obtain things ILLEGALLY that they can already obtain ILLEGALLY." The illogic makes my head spin.

[ari-freedom]

they will never understand that the 2nd amendment is not even about crime, it is about insurance to prevent the govt from stuff like this:

[RKBA Democrat]

“This is biased and problematic, to say the least.”

Since when has the lamestream media written an article on guns that wasn’t?

[JDoutrider]

MOLON LABE!

[endthematrix]

"Every day about two dozen officers fan out across the city's roughest blackest neighborhoods, stopping drivers and pedestrians for traffic and other offenses and executing warrants in search of illegal guns."

But even a rumor of censorship and the MSM cries, "FREE SPEECH!" and "FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS!"

[singfreedom]

I especially loved the fact that researchers compared D.C. to “prosperous suburbs”. I nearly fell out of my chair laughing! Jeez, D.C. would look violent and crime ridden even if it were compared to the Battle of the Bulge!

[G.Mason]

... "We have more than 250 million guns in this country, and not all of those guns are in the hands of rational people," ...

We have several million elected officials in the United States.

Just how many of them are rational?

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒE

[RoadKingSE]

In Congress, the Uphill Battle for Gun Control

Made even more difficult by the passing of that Brady Bill gonif Howard Metzenbomb. (:^*)

[RoadKingSE]

a study published five years later argued that the assessment wasn't valid because it compared D.C. with prosperous suburbs rather than with another city, such as Baltimore, where homicides also declined during the same period.

The statistics re: Baltimore are 16 years old and laughable. It ain't for nuttin that Baltimore, Maryland is known by its street thugs as Bodymore Murderland. Hon. It's not even safe downey ocean.

[SeeSalt]

A 1991 study found an almost 25 percent decline in homicides and a 23 percent drop in suicides by firearms following the ban..

What a BS! The homicides and suicides by firearms may be decreased 25% and 23% respectively , but total homicides and suicides did not! So,what is the deal? Do they prefer homicides and suicides by knife,crow bar, bath tub, ?

[notdownwidems]

ok where’s the barf alert?

[Don Joe]

in 1996, the House voted to repeal the assault weapons ban

Wow... Agitprop Central!

Since when is NOT voting to RENEW a law that was only passed because it carried a built-in expiration considered the same as "[voting] to repeal a law?

This is beyond spin. It's pure unreconstructed agitprop.

[facedown]

But supporters of gun control say that the strength of the National Rifle Association in many states makes it nearly impossible to even discuss laws targeting illegal guns.

An outright lie.

[facedown]

BTW, check this out from her bio:

She served as an editor and reporter for two years at the University of California-Berkeley’s Daily Californian, a daily student newspaper with a circulation of 10,000.

[Amendment10]

First it was the AP, next the Herald Sun, and now US News and World Report.

The free press is failing (intentionally misleading?) everybody where discussions about our 2nd A. protections are concerned; the press is evidently as ignorant of the Constitution and its history as most people are. More specifically, regardless that no discussion about our 2nd A. protections is complete without mention of how the 2nd A. relates to the 14th Amendment, the referenced article makes no mention 14th Amendment (corrections welcome).

The reason for this is that John Bingham, the main author of Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment, included the 2nd A. when he read the first eight amendments as examples of constitutional statutes containing privileges and immunities that the 14th A. applied to the states. So there is no doubt in my mind that the 2nd and 14th Amendments protect the right to keep and bear arms from the federal and state governments as much as any other personal right protected by the Constitution's privileges and immunities.

See the 2nd A. in the middle column of the following page from the Congressional Globe, a precursor to the Congressional Record. The page is a part of one of Bingham's discussions about the 14th Amendment.

http://tinyurl.com/y3ne4n

Note that the referenced page is dated for more than two years after the ratification of the 14th Amendment. So Bingham was evidently reassuring his colleagues about the scope and purpose of the ratified 14th Amendment.

Again, how can the free press protect our constitutional freedoms when the press doesn't know the Constitution and its history in the first place?

[Fido969]

Philly is a “Democrat Stronghold” - read: “cesspool.”