The Washington Post weighs in on the DC gun ban. Naturally, they are in favor of citizens being forbidden from owning firearms, and find it offensive that Senator Orrin Hatch would want to restore freedom to the people. Of course, they also profess that the idea of a few select lawmakers banning firearms for the whole of the law abiding populace is simply "the ability of District residents to make their own decisions". I guess they think that Orrin Hatch would be requiring citizens to own a firearm, rather than letting them decide individually; something that only Kennesaw, Georgia* has thus far been able to do.

Of course, they also make the claim that criminals will be delighted about the prospect of law abiding citizens owning firearms. Burglars and muggers must be better sports than I thought, if they prefer to have a victim that is armed versus one that is unarmed and helpless. I think this pretty much sums up the Post's view on guns:

The best way to dry up this supply of guns would be for Congress to enact a federal law extending the District protections to Maryland, Virginia and all other states.

In case you were wondering, by "protections", they mean "gun ban", and by "all other states", they mean yours.

*In 1982, Kennesaw Georgia passed a law requiring (with few exceptions) all heads of households to own at least one firearm. Crime plummeted the next year. Shortly after passage of the law, city lawmakers even passed the hat to purchase a gun for an elderly lady who wanted to comply, but could not afford to.