Imagine the uproar that would happen if a Southern mayor said in a speech, "I know that the courts have said that Black people are equal to Whites, and I have sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution - but I hate integration. I will do as much as I can within the law to keep Blacks in their place."
Imagine the uproar if a mayor anywhere in the US said, "I know that the Constitution provides for freedom of religion, and I am sworn to uphold it - but I hate Muslims. I intend to do everything I can to keep them out and if that fails to make life as difficult as possible for them."
Imagine the uproar if a U.S. mayor said in a speech, "I hate being criticized - so I hate the press. I know that the Constitution provides for freedom of the press - but I am going to restrict the press as much as possible."
Imagine if a New York mayor said, "I know that the 4th Amendment provides protection against unreasonable searches - but I am instructing my police force to search as many "suspicious" people on the street as they possibly can. If that results in more black men being searched - oh well......" Oh wait, we don't have to imagine - that is exactly what two NYC mayors did and there was a huge uproar and the policy was reversed.
The press would never tolerate any of the above actions by a mayor - and neither would the Administration - or the Congress. We hold our civil rights dear - except for one. Consider these comments by Washington D.C.'s newly minted mayor, Muriel Bowser:
“You have a mayor who hates guns,” she said. “If it was up to me, we wouldn’t have any handguns in the District of Columbia. I swear to protect the Constitution and what the courts say, but I will do it in the most restrictive way as possible.” (Source)
Notice that there is no wishy-washy language about supporting the 2nd Amendment, but wanting reasonable restrictions. This woman is quite clear - if she had her way she would eliminate a basic civil right, placed in the Constitution by the Founding Fathers. But since she can't do that, she will restrict the right as much as possible. Having this mayor upholding the 2nd Amendment rights of her citizens is like putting the KKK in charge of enforcing civil rights laws.
Of course, the mainstream press won't cover these comments - because it would cause an uproar among the roughly 50% of Americans who own firearms. True, many of these gun owners do support some reasonable restrictions - like instant background checks - but when you start talking about banning firearms protected by the 2nd Amendment, they tend to get VERY UPSET. They also tend to get organized and demand solutions. Thankfully, they also have their own communication system, and they WILL FIND OUT.
Civil rights are not unrelated to each other. Like pillars in a building, each one works with the others to support the roof - which in this case is is AMERICAN FREEDOM. If you are opposed to one of our freedoms, you are undermining all of our freedoms.
So, what should be done? Congress has looked at this issue before and threatened to use a simple solution that is within their rights because Washington D.C. is a federal enclave: A preemption of all of D.C.'s gun laws.
It should be noted that this would in no way eliminate all restrictions on firearms. Robust federal laws - including background checks - would remain in place. What would not remain in place would be the D.C. mayor's attack on the basic civil rights of her citizens and visitors.