I think the most asinine quote in the Fox article is here (red font).....
City Council Chairman Phil Mendelson said Sunday that he just learned of the ruling and had yet to read the opinion. However, he said because of the District's unique national security concerns, the right to carry a firearm in public "must be more heavily restricted than any place else in the nation."
"Four U.S. presidents have been assassinated by gunfire, and at least five others have been shot at, including Ronald Regan who was seriously wounded in 1981," he said. "Neither the Secret Service nor the Capitol Police will disclose all incidents where they have recovered firearms, but we do know that just two years ago someone hit the White House with gunfire, and there are frequent threats on the foreign diplomatic corps."Ok.... yes it is indeed true that there is
no place in the U.S. -- and few in the world -- with such a confluence of "interesting" risks that need to be mitigated, as there is in Washington DC. You've got POTUS, SCOTUS, Congressmen and Senators all under the protection of various police departments and agencies. You've got foreign dignitaries (visiting, or residing on diplomatic assignment) under the protection of the Department of State's "DS" wing. And you've got countless national treasures that a terror cell would love to destroy.
However, what the heck does that have to do with law-abiding citizens owning or carrying firearms? After all,
every example the Council Chairman cited that occurred in the District of Columbia happened under the most stringent gun control in the country! I'm not sure what he's trying to prove but the argument is totally illogical. Does he thing
more people would go all John Hinckley, Jr-nutso if they had Second Amendment freedoms?
