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.

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.

Considering these notions, pay attention to the security of a “free state.” This shifts the power from the government, which seeks to limit our freedoms, to the people who seek freedom. Those freedoms suggested are included in the Constitution and the Declaration of Indepedence. They are also included in some of the works of John Locke, whose opinions clearly shaped our country’s most important documents of the era. We, as the people of the free state, have a right to keep and bear arms, not only for our own safety and protection (along with neccessities such as hunting), but also maintain that right in order to maintain this as a free country.

This was a way to ensure the playing field was level between the government and the people. If the people were forbidden to bear arms, if a government decided to enforce laws that were both unethical and illegal by the constitution, the people would be powerless to fight back. Or at least at a significant disadvantage. The government could just send in a military force and overpower the “opposition.” We’ve still seen this several times throughout our history, yet may have become a more common occurance had we not had this right. In fact, we may not be a free state at all, and I wouldn’t be posting this blog.

That is why DC lost it’s court battle over making it impossible to obtain a gun permit in the district. Although the laws there in place were to help protect people from violent crimes, it also put the people at a disadvantage in dealing with illegal government actions.

I’m not saying that these rights should still be extended to felons and those convicted of violent crimes. When you have committed a violent crime or a felony, and have been found guilty by a jury of your peers, you have forfeited many of your rights. Why? Because you have shown an utter disregard to the rights of others, both constitutional rights and human rights. In other words, they have “infringed” the rights of others to a degree that it irreversible.

Limiting certain types of weapons can also be considered constitutional. Weapons that are designed for maximum carnage (such as machine guns, full-automatic assault rifles, etc) poses a threat to the free state, which goes against the 2nd amendment. Even against a military operation, a semi-automatic has proven even against people carrying fully automatics. Machine guns indescriminately kill.

Also, limiting specific forms of amunition is also constitutional, if they can be proven to pose a threat to the free state. “Cop killers” are a great example. They are designed for maximum carnage. If they hit a person not wearing a bullet proof vest, the pin planted into the hollow-point goes into and bounces around, tearing up your guts, brains, etc. They can also exit the body and hit someone else, causing injury or worse. Centerfire cartrages though are perfectly constitutional. When they hit their target, the deform and mushroom, decreasing the number of shots fired, reducing the risk of others getting harmed. They also tend not to make a clean shot and hit someone else, with the exception of some larger rounds from specific types of guns (such as a 45 ACP from a short barrel for some reason).

Obama is wanting to push specific agendas for gun control. One of which is additional taxation on ammunition. I disagree with this fully. Ammunition is an integral part of firearms, without them guns are metal and plastic clubs. Expensive ones at that. A limited increase in taxation could be deemed acceptable, however – while I don’t know specifics – he is proposing a large increase in ammunition (which has increased the price of ammunition due to supply fears, and has also increased demand to purchase ammo prior to such a move). A move such as this can be and should be deemed unconstitutional, an infringement upon our rights.

This increase in taxation is due to attempted gun control, nothing else. Being as an integral part of a firearm, this intentionally makes it more difficult (due to cost) to own and maintain a firearm.

And no, I’m no NRA nut (half those guys are half cocked). And yes, I do believe in gun control. But I also believe in my rights, rights that were given to my and every other American through the blood of previous Americans, and the daring ambition of a handful of men who took the gamble to free us from the British Imperialism we were ruled under. I also know that gun control is a dicey business, take one thing away and a black market emerges. Since we cannot legally buy machine guns (with few exceptions), others have stepped in to sell them against the law. The entry price for one of those is incredibly high, putting them out of reach (cost wise) of many Americans. Who buys them? Usually organized crime, gangs, others with high bank rolls and a lot to lose. This puts us plain ol handgun owners at a disadvantage, and threatens the security of the free state (I know I said that such weapons can be considered not covered by the 2nd amendment, however, this shows another example to the threats we face against a free state by denying this right). It also puts large sums of money in crooks’ hands, which is always a bad idea (just like investing with Madoff).

So for all those screaming against allow people to own and carry guns, just remember to be careful for what you wish for. I don’t like the idea of only the government and crooks being able to have guns.

Just for those wondering where this all came from, I’m looking into buying a handgun. I’m going to stick my hat into doing some competitive shooting (USPSA), yet also want something good for home defense too. I’m also considering a shotgun for the second part. But all this requires money, so in due time…