This NRA-backed bill repealing DC's gun laws serves only the political interests of the gun lobby and the profit motives of the gun industry. Make no mistake, such a radical reversal of DC's gun policy will cost lives.

Kristen Rand
VPC Legislative Director
September 17, 2008
House of Representatives Votes to Repeal District of Columbia's Gun Laws
[I think there are a few things Ms. Rand erred in when she make this statement:

1. Repealing DC's gun laws was done by the U.S. Supreme Court last June, not the House of Representatives or "the gun lobby".
2. She says "profit" like it were a bad thing. It is not. Profits indicate willing customers finding willing suppliers of goods and services. But her apparent dislike of this is to be expected--there is a very high correlation between socialists/communists and those that wish to remove guns from individuals. For her to do that puts her at odds with the entire basis of our country and in alignment with the most brutal, murderous tyrants in history. This alone should be reason enough to be suspicious of anything she advocates.
3. The "profit" from sales into DC will be such a tiny blip on the balance sheet of "gun industry" they won't even notice and cannot be considered a motive.
4. The lives it will cost will be almost exclusively those of violent criminals. And even then one should expect the overall death rate to decrease to levels approaching that of nearby Virginia with firearm laws much closer to being in alignment with the specific enumerated right guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. Hence, either she regards all lives as equally important or she is unaware the repressive gun laws in DC did not enhance safety.

In those two simple two sentences there were four errors. Let's enumerate the things she got correct:

1. The bill is backed by the NRA.
2. It is a radical reversal of the DC's gun policy.

Final score 2-4. With the two valid points being irrelevant to what is really should be an answer to Just One Question. If I were grading her essay as if it were a test I would give it 0.5 out of 10. The spelling and grammar were adequate.--Joe]