The people who claim that D.C.'s gun ban is "successful" should define what they mean by success. If creating one of the most dangerous cities in the country is success, then they have, indeed, succeeded.

Likewise, people hear NYC Mayor Bloomberg, who harps on the issue of "illegal" guns causing local crime should look at the amount of crime where those guns supposedly originate. For instance, D.C.'s high crime rate was mentioned: Does anyone mention the ridiculously low crime rate just a short walk across the Potomac River bridge in Arlington, VA where guns are readily available and where permits to carry concealed weapons are relatively easy to obtain?

The truth is that those pushing for more gun restrictions have never truly been interested in crime control. Rather they have always been interested in citizen control, using crime as a camouflage for the real intentions. Do a search for the Blackwell Committee report, Parliament's study in 1919 and the root of the British gun control laws so admired by those who would restrict gun ownership. You'll find that while crime control was the reason given publicly, the truth is that the government was afraid its citizens were on the verge of revolt and must be disarmed before that occurred. Here, in a land where the government is supposedly the servant of the people, enacting such laws only shows how far our government has drifted from that state.

It is erroneously stated in the opening sentence that DC "has successfully banned handguns for 30 years." Aside from the mischaracterization of the so-called "Gun Ban", what is the definition of "successful"? Since DC has been vying for, if not winning, the title of "Murder Capital" of the US every year since the "Gun Ban" was enacted, and since handgun crime in DC is astronomical, it's clear to any thinking person that DC HAS NOT successfully banned handguns - in fact, they have abjectly failed in their ill-conceived attempt. If anything, the DC experiment has proven - AT GREAT COST TO HUMAN LIFE - the fallicy of the "Magic Magnet" theory - that somehow, by saying guns aren't allowed, a magic magnet will suck them all up into artillery heaven, and crime will cease.

What was the goal, anyway - to ban guns, or to reduce gun crime? They have failed miserably on either count. What DC has accomplished is the "Ban" of Legal handguns in the hands of responsible citizens - they have disarmed only the law abiding. The criminals (ie. LAWBREAKERS) break lots of laws - including the laws against rape, robbery, and murder, and, incidentally, gun laws. DUH!

It is also very clear that, regardless of the bogus argument being put forth by DC, the Second Amendment, like each of the protections ennumerated in the Bill of Rights, did, does, and always will refer to an individual right. Their "states' rights" argument has never held water, and if it did, among other things, it would mean that all Federal gun restrictions are unconstitutional. The Bill of Rights was created in order to protect the rights of individuals - NOT to create, or grant, or permit, or allow - but to protect rights already deemed to be inalienable human rights - in order to convince the individuals in each state to vote to ratify the Constitution. Please, go look it up. The Bill of Rights outlines the rights of people, not the rights of states.

In an essential admission of this truth, there was never a "DC Gun Ban", as it is commonly called, because DC knew it would be unconstitutional. DC was very careful NOT to ban handguns, recognizing that to do so would have been an infringement of 2nd Amendment guarantees, and that a ban would have been immediately overturned. DC simply figured out a sneaky, underhanded way of dodging the 2nd Amendment by requiring a permit in order to have a handgun, and then creating a Catch 22 by refusing to issue any such permit. (Not surprising, coming from the city that elected Marion Barry following his crack cocaine conviction! Ethics in government is clearly not a priority among DC voters or the City Council.)

The Washington DC resident in the Supreme Court Case, Dick Heller, is a professional Security Guard, who is armed at all times while protecting Senators, Congressmen, and other "important" people in DC. Why should he not be entitled to exercise that same means - deemed reasonable for protecting VIPs - as a legitimate means to protect himself? Why should any average, law-abiding citizen - who can't afford to hire an armed guard - give up his or her ability to self and family defense? Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama have armed guards. Congress, and all government buildings are protected by armed guards. The DC mayor is protected by armed guards - not only while in prison! As a nation, we have always recognized the value, and sanctioned the use, of guns in the protection of human life. Are VIPs more valuable than your family?

If Dick Heller was likely to go berserk and commence a shooting spree, he could do it at any time - with a gun he legally carries every day on the job. The proven truth is, any criminal can commit any crime at any time. Laws do not prevent crime - they can be broken.

The DC gun law has demonstrably failed to keep guns out of DC, or out of the hands of criminals, or to keep criminals from shooting people. So, what has it accomplished? It has created a safe working environment for criminals, by disarming their victims (ie. those who obey the law) and the crime rate, including gun crimes, has skyrocketed, and is grossly disproportionate to the crime rate in other areas. Lawbreakers in DC apparently feel safe - as well they should - attacking defenseless men, women, and children. They know that their victims are sitting ducks, with no means to defend themselves, so they take what they want, with total disregard for any laws - including gun laws. (Note: that's why they are called lawbreakers, or criminals).

If the number of guns in an area determined the level of crime, neighboring states like Maryland and Virginia would have crime rates higher than DC, because there are more guns there. Criminals have demonstrated a preference for committing their misdeeds and atrocities in areas where their intended victims have been disarmed by the government - in places like DC, New York City, or on school grounds - like at Virginia Tech, where the students were disarmed and helpless. Yet, in the surrounding areas of rural Virginia, where there are lots of guns in the hands of average citizens, the crime rate is extremely low. The reason is obvious - criminals aren't completely stupid.

Think like a criminal for a moment - if you want to commit an armed robbery, and you have two convenience stores to choose from, do you choose the store with the sign saying (A) "No Guns Allowed on this property. Our clerks are unarmed. Violators will be Prosecuted!" or (B) "We fight crime by shooting back."

Hint: Just in case you ARE completely stupid, the correct answer is "A".

Many people will tell you that removing guns will remove problems such as school shootings and armed robberies. This seems to make sense on the surface, but if you do a little research about the subject you will find that the states with the lowest crime rates, are the ones that allow conceal and carry. (Letting people to carry handguns for protection.) Also, criminals have a way of getting firearms whether they are legal or not, would you rather that only criminals have guns? Or would it make you more comfortable if you knew that there were people around you that had been trained for hours, had full background checks, and legally are allowed to carry? You will find that the states that allow this have much lower crime rates. If you were a criminal, where do you want to go? The state that allows its citizens to carry handguns? Or the state where you know nobody has one? It will always be possible for criminals to get guns. Also the purpose of the second Amendment is to allow citizens protection from their government. I ask that you think about this, if you give up your firearms. Who will still have them? The government and criminals. Now, who here actually trusts the government? Do you trust that they actually have your best interests in mind? What I'm saying is if the government were to remove your rights, are you going to let them? Remember when the bill of rights was written, we had just escaped the rule of the British empire. If the British had taken all the guns, would we be a country? I just ask that you think about this, do you trust the world you live in? Removing handguns will not solve our problems. Only create new ones. Another thing, even if all guns were somehow removed from existence, people will still find ways to kill each other. When we give up our guns, we give up our freedoms. If you questions the statistics simply google it. Just something to think about! Make sure you study the statistics before you decide! Good day friends!