PrintMarch 20, 2010
Mr. McDonald's Handgun
The Supreme Court recently heard arguments in what will be a landmark case for the Second Amendment: McDonald v. Chicago. A ruling is expected this June.
A bit of history is in order. In 2008, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of gun rights in Heller v. The District of Columbia. The basis for Heller was that Washington, D.C. prohibited ownership of a handgun. The Court ruled that a federal enclave (D.C.) could not, through legislation, deprive law-abiding citizens of their constitutional rights. The ruling was a major victory for gun owners, the Constitution, and personal liberty.
Since the 2008 case prohibited restrictive gun ownership only in Washington, D.C., Americans living under state and local rule prohibiting the right to bear arms were motivated to present a sister case contesting the constitutionality of legislating away a right. So McDonald v. Chicago was filed, the basis being that McDonald wanted to legally own a handgun for protection in the city of Chicago, where handgun ownership is illegal.
I don't have a single issue political litmus test, but if I did, it would be how a candidate or elected official stands on gun control. And I'm passionate about this political issue for the following reasons: The right to bear arms is paramount to our liberty, and nothing solidifies that more for me than its location at the beginning of our bill of rights.
The Second Amendment was penned not for the benefit of hunters and recreation (although that is a great by-product), but to ensure personal protection and the last line of defense against a rogue government. The framers of our Constitution had recently experienced the oppression of a tyrannical government, and they wanted to ensure that future citizens would have the freedom to bear arms and that future governing bodies would well understand that those they rule have leverage at the ballot box first -- and if that process is ignored, then with a firearm second.
In truth, the former reason is the real reason liberal politicians push for gun control. I am not an advocate of revolution when we have a voice, but our founding fathers repeatedly sought representation, only be to consistently ignored and abused by a government that was not of the people, for the people and by the people.
But what does a government have to fear from a law-abiding citizen who owns guns? The answer is nothing...ever. A law-abiding man is going to be...law-abiding. The ownership of a gun does not transform him into something evil. Certainly, evil men have guns regardless of the law, which is all the more reason for law-abiding citizens to have guns for self-defense. Firearms are not going to go away. The only thing that will change with more stringent gun laws is that law-abiding citizens will become unarmed and move into the unrestricted, year-round open season category for criminals. Outlawing the ownership of firearms also moves the government one step closer to tyranny.
Those on the pro side of gun control need to study history. Start with the impact of gun control on Germany in 1930s. Taking away German citizens' private ownership of arms was not the catalyst for WWII, but it was a vital act that propelled Adolf Hitler into unchecked power. Study the increase in the crime rate in post-gun control England and Australia.
If those who push so hard for gun control were really concerned about the safety of our citizens, you'd think that they would attack the core problem. In a New York Times study of the 1600 murders between 2003 and 2005, over 90 percent of the killers had a criminal record, and it's appalling how many of those were convicted felons. This is the rule, not the exception; people commit crimes, not guns. We need criminal control, but the same people who scream for more gun control are often the very ones who demand criminal rights and rehab in lieu of just punishment and keeping the scum off the streets. A criminal who proves that he has no respect for the law is not going to lay down his gun because ownership is no longer legal. If a person doesn't care to own a firearm, that is fine. But the fact is that we are safer and enjoy more freedom today because our citizens enjoy the freedom of gun ownership.
Some people argue that guns should be outlawed because they present such a safety risk. But three times more people die in car accidents each year than are killed with guns. Over half of the deaths in auto accidents are alcohol-related, and there are more firearms in America then there are private vehicles, which statistically makes the ratio worse for autos. Rules and safety precautions are in place for alcohol, autos, and weapons, and there are negative consequences for non-compliance. So the debate is really not about safety or we'd be outlawing cars and booze.
The gun license and registration requirements don't work because gun-licensing is another form of taxation and government bureaucracy. "Registration" is a precursor for confiscation. Driving a car is a privilege; gun ownership is a right. There are already rules and protocol in place for proper gun ownership. If we follow those, we'll all be fine...we don't need more laws, more fees, and more taxes on guns.
The talking heads believe that the Supreme Court will rule 5-4 in favor of the Second Amendment, but it is scary that something this fundamental and vital could be so close. For our future freedom, let's hope that the Second Amendment, the American people, and Mr. McDonald are the victors.
