A handgun ban would be some level of restriction. The point is that the city is not allowed to make that, or any other restriction. As far as heller goes, Heller himself was from DC, but heller was just the face of the lawsuit. He was a person picked by outside interests to represent someone with standing to sue, along with others.
The lawsuit itself was paid for by Robert Levy, A libertarian of the Cato Institute funded by the Koch Bros., who specifically sought out and vetted people who would be represented in the suit. Neither Levy, nor the Koch Bros. live in DC.
I keep being told by conservatives that if you don’t like the law, elect legislators to change it, don’t seek out activist judges to change it for you. In this case, in a city, electing people to change the law is much easier than for a country or even a state. A city like DC actually reflects the will of the people fairly well.
It was a small minority of people in DC who wanted to have more access to guns, and an overwhelming majority that did not. People from outside of the city came in and used the courts to overthrow the will of the majority.
If people of DC wanted less restrictions, they could have campaigned for representation that would loosen up gun laws. Instead, they, as Bricker would put it, “went crying to a judge.”
You can ask any conservative here to back me up on this. They look out for themselves above others. This has been recounted by Bricker and/or Bone in gun threads, (I know at least one made the statement, if needed, I can try to search through the millions of gun thread posts to cite it) specifically saying that they would carry a gun to make themselves feel safer, even if they knew that it made those around them less safe. It has been confirmed when Bricker and HuricaneDikta have said that they want their taxes lowered, even if that means that other people are harmed. Bricker’s specific statement was that he shouldn’t have to pay for things that other people need, when he was defending the republican’s defunding of CHIP (he made an analogy that funding healthcare was like being required to pay for a junky’s heroin). It is not partisanship to make the very obvious and accurate observation that conservative principles put self and family (and tribe) above others.
Like I said, I was raised in that environment. I live in that environment. Most of the people in my life are from that point of view. I rejected that ideology. And that is more or less the limit of my partisanship, I cannot support the conservative party, as I do not believe in its most fundamental principle, “Self above all else”. I do not strongly support the progressives, I actually have many issues with them as well, but the core belief of the progressive, that everyone should receive fair if not equal treatment, is much closer to what I can support, even if those in charge sometimes fall short of that goal.
So, what part of my position are you challenging? That conservatives put self, family, and tribe above others? That rural areas get more representation per person than urban areas? Or my conclusion from those two observations (along with observations as to actual conduct of conservative politicians) that rural areas use their disproportionate political power to help themselves at the expense of urban areas? These are accurate observations, so far as I can tell. If you think I am wrong, tell me where I am wrong, don’t just throw out erroneous accusations that I make these observations out of some form of partisanship.