McDonald vs Chicago – 2nd amendment at stake

March 6, 2010 by munky · Leave a Comment
Filed under: Crime, Politics 
Oral arguments in McDonald vs The City of Chicago were made March 2nd, 2010

Oral arguments in McDonald vs The City of Chicago were made March 2nd, 2010

As much as I love Chicago, I couldn’t live there. No point moving to a city where the bad guys (correction, kids) can shoot you, and you can’t do much about it. That’s right, the wonderful 1982 handgun ban. Obviously these kids never got the memo, because murders committed by handguns has only increased since the ban was enacted. Imagine that.

Otis McDonald is challenging this ban in the U.S. Supreme Court. The big question is if the 2nd Amendment applies to states as well. Uh, yea. Hopefully the court will agree with my position.

Now don’t confuse me with the gun radicals, who think anyone and everyone should be allowed to own any gun that they damn well please. Obviously guns should be kept out of the hands of convicted felons, mentally deranged/depressed/etc., and we have no need for fully automatic guns. But we do have a right to protected, or to protect ourselves. It is not the police department’s duty to protect individual citizens. As one Illinois court put it, such a duty “would put the police in the position of guaranteeing the personal safety of every member of the community.” (Detroit News). Banning legal citizens from handgun ownership, yet not giving provisions for the protection of those same citizens. It’s a recipe for disaster.

For the moral crusaders who support the gun ban, put this in your pipe for a moment. Pretend I’m a person planning on killing someone. I shoot them dead. Am I concerned about possessing a handgun? Probably not.

Now consider the other side of the equation. You have Otis McDonald, a 76 year old from Chicago. His house has been burglarized, his life’s been threatened. What can he do to protect himself and his property? They have the guns. Maybe the police can stake out his place for a while, right? Good luck on that one. If you want, go hold your breath and I’ll come and get you when the police arrive.

That’s why all law-abiding citizens in Chicago, especially in the city’s highest crime districts, should be hoping that McDonald wins. In fact, those in other cities with tight handgun restrictions should be hopeful too. If the Supreme Court shoots down this ban, many places are going to have to make some major changes.

As they should. I am a law abiding citizen, and a handgun owner. I am thankful we have  laws here to provide for legal gun ownership. I’m not running around the hood shooting people because I’m an idiot who thinks its cool to be a gangbanger. But it someone tries to come bursting through my door, trying to put my family’s life and property in danger, they need to reconsider. I have a right, an unalienable right, to protect myself. It is a cornerstone that this country was founded on…

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. – Declaration of Independence

Gun bans go against this, signing away our rights to hoodlums and gangbangers, anyone who refuses to accept the laws that the common of the people agree to live by.  As law abiding citizens, we have a right to protect ourselves, and a right to reasonably choose how we would want to do so. As the old adage goes, “in order to have peace, you must prepare for war.”

A full transcript of the oral arguments made before the court in the case of McDonald vs. The City of Chicago (08-1521).

More information on the history and implications of this case and the ban in Chicago is available at CNN.

Tags: , ,

The Taboo of Guns and Gun Control

February 28, 2009 by munky · Leave a Comment
Filed under: Politics 

 

Even Talking About This is Taboo

Even This Image is Taboo

I’m no gun expert, but I do appreciate firearms. Yet the subject of guns is extremely taboo in this society, which is amazing given that we have a constitutional right just for them. Given that our new president has made it clear that he doesn’t like guns, I decided to think about and given my own interpretation to the second amendment.

 

  Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I have heard many opinions on this, with interpretations in each corner. Now I will give you my not so law-schooled opinion, but the opinion of someone who has great interest in the period of history surrounding this amendment.

First off, the well regulated militia. At the time in America in which this was written, we didn’t have so much of a standing army. In fact, Washington (the original G.W.) and other leaders of the continental army disarmed and went back to a more philosophical life. They didn’t believe in the standing army.

Many today argue that since we have a powerful standing Army, that it suggests that the right to bear arms is limited for that fact, given that our country has round the clock security. To them, they are wrong. First off, the ignore the fact that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Period. Those words “shall not be infringed,” cannot be construed or interpretted differently.

However, more can be taken from this. Consider the line “being necessary to the security of a free State.” Many interpret this being the security of the United States, better termed as national security. However, this is not how it is put, and given one of the main driving forces of the Bill of Rights, this was intentional. Thomas Jefferson believed that a country (even a ‘free’ democracy) needed a rebellion every 20 years or so. Given the wording in the Declaration of Independence, our fore-fathers understood that once a tyrannical leader commits too many crimes against his own people, the people have the human right to rebel. Read more

Tags: , , , , , ,