Part 4 Eleanor Holmes Norton
Eleanor Holmes Norton is another anti-gun nut who opposes any changes in Washington DC’s failed “gun control” laws. She is yet one more individual who has the blood of innocent victims on her hands because she denies citizens their Second Amendment-protected right to keep and bear arms in self-defense.
Norton, who, thank God, is a non-voting representative of the District of Columbia in the U.S. House of Representatives, is quoted in the Washington Post (5/31/02) as saying: “The District should pull out all the stops to preserve our valuable handgun ban law at a time when crime rates have begun to rise.”
Washington DC’s handgun ban law has been “valuable?!” The only people who have found this handgun ban to be “valuable” are the criminals!
In May of 2002, when Norton was attacking Attorney General John Ashcroft’s recently stated view that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, she said, about Ashcroft: “He must not be allowed to worsen gun problems in the capitol, which has already seen a spike in gunfights in the streets recently.”
But, it’s hard to imagine how “gun problems” in Washington DC could “worsen” — the “gun problems” being, of course, that the criminals have guns and innocent citizens don’t. And because of the unconstitutional laws she supports, there are no “gunfights.” There are, to be sure, shootings, homicides, and murders committed by criminals in the District of Columbia. But, there are no “gunfights” because citizens are not allowed to fight back with privately-owned guns.
Still, Norton’s statements here — though idiotic — are nonetheless instructive because even she admits that crime rates have risen despite the handgun ban she continues to support.
Norton’s views on citizen security are bizarre, to put it charitably. In mid-March of 2003, she introduced the Open Society With Security Act which would establish a commission to come up with “approaches and strategies… for security against terrorism.”
Great. But, what about the “terrorism” of violent crime against innocent citizens of the District of Columbia? What about these people, her constituents? How about giving them “security” by allowing them to keep and bear arms for self-defense?
Norton’s blind and mindless faith in gun control laws is astounding. When those sniper-murderers were running wild in the Washington DC area, she held a press conference at the site of one of these murders in the District of Columbia. According to the American University newspaper The Eagle (11/21/002), Norton said: “The unfolding story of how widespread the sniper terror was coast-to-coast could break the stone wall that has stopped most gun legislation in the Congress for the last several years.”
Right. In Norton’s fantasy world, more “gun control” might have, supposedly — what — prevented these murders? Does she really believe that people bent on committing mass murder would obey more gun control laws? Yes, she does — which is why she is a fanatic on this subject.
In mid-May of 2001, addressing the “Million Mom March” in Washington DC, Norton said: “Moms are back and… we’re not going anywhere until you get these guns off the streets.” But, gun contro” has not gotten the guns off the streets of Washington DC! The only thing “gun control” has accomplished in the District of Columbia is to disarm innocent citizens and make them even more vulnerable to their murderers who have guns!
In late April of 2000, when seven children were hit by gunfire at the Washington DC National Zoo, Norton said, on NBC’s Today show (4/25/2000): “If that isn’t a wake-up call to pass gun safety legislation… then there’s no way to wake [Congress] up.” But, it’s Norton who needs to wake-up! The person who did the shooting at the Washington Zoo already violated umpteen “gun control” laws. A “gun safety” law (whatever that means) would have, in no way, stopped this shooting.
In mid-1999, several members of the House of Representatives introduced legislation to repeal the failed DC gun-ban laws. Holding what she called “an emergency press conference,” Norton denounced this legislation because it would have “radical effects.” To repeal the DC gun ban, she said, “would convert a compact city full of crime into open territory for guns as if this were the far West, where hunting is fair game…. As outrageous as our crime rate has been, who can doubt that it would be far worse if guns had been freely available here.”
Well, I, for one, doubt that things would be “far worse” in Washington DC if citizens were allowed their Constitutionally-protected right to keep and bear arms in self-defense. In fact, I deny things would be worse if the Second Amendment was honored and obeyed in Washington DC.
Guns are “freely available” in Virginia. Does Rep. Norton have a clue why crime is so much lower there?
But, yes indeed, I must admit there most certainly would be “radical effects” if the DC gun ban was repealed. You bet! And one of these effects would be that innocent DC citizens, if armed, would have at least an even chance against the violent thugs who are attacking and murdering them now. As things stand now, because of the DC gun ban, innocent citizens are sitting ducks for armed criminals — a status quo Norton wants to preserve.
And, please, notice again, how Norton implicitly admits the DC gun ban has failed referring to the District of Columbia’s “outrageous” crime wave. As for the notion that allowing DC citizens to keep and bear arms for self-defense would result in a situation like the “far West” (I assume she meant the Wild West), this reveals Norton’s ignorance of history. Average citizens in the so-called “Wild West” were a lot safer than average citizens today in Washington DC.
A footnote: Numerous calls to Norton’s office seeking to interview her about the DC gun ban laws were ignored as were requests for any information she has showing this gun ban has in fact reduced crime committed by people with guns.