Monday, the United States Supreme Court ruled on what I have been complaining about for a long time now (see The Right to Keep and Arm Bears).
For years it has pissed me off that cities continually think that they have the right to legislate gun ownership to such a degree that it's almost impossible to carry a gun anywhere but inside your house, and even then they try to prevent that in places.
The high court has tap-danced around this issue for far too long, and it's about time they weighed in on the topic.
This decision on McDonald vs. City of Chicago, however, is distrubing to me.
One of the purposes of the Supreme Court is to be the arbiter of the Constitution. Although the ruling turned out correctly in upholding the Second Amendment, there were four judges who apparently are not convinced.
First I have to say, holy crap these judges can be long-winded in their comments. All of them tend to ramble on and on about the exact same thing over and over again as if the number of words makes them somehow more important. Sheesh, make your point and move along.
After reading most of the Majority and Dissenting comments I think I can boil things down to a fraction of what I have read.
The thing that really bugs me about this case is the discussion on whether or not the Bill of Rights can be infringed upon by the States. It seems that the Bill of Rights was put in place to protect the citizens of the United States from the Federal government, but not necessarily the state government. Since that time, there have been numerous cases where the Supreme Court has ruled that at least the first 8 Amendements of the Bill of Rights must be upheld by the states.
What strikes me as odd to begin with is why the heck wouldn't the Bill of Rights apply to citizens within a state, and from a state government as well as the Federal government?
How powerful would our rights be if the states we live in could just supress them at will?
In the case of the second amendement, since this is what this article is about, why on Earth would we have the right to keep and bare arms to defend ourselves, but not in the state with which we live? For a state to pass legislation to prevent its citizens to keep and bare arms goes directly against the second amendment!
This is the point that has always bothered me when I hear that a city has passed a law where you cannot bare arms in their city.
Sorry, but if you're a city in the United States of America, I DO have a right to bare arms in your city! Read the constitution! I don't care what sort of mamby pamby government officials try to pass their own agenda's to prevent this, it's our right as a citizen of this country.
In this recent case agains the City of Chicago, it was proven that crime has increased since the ban was passed in the city.
I really get tired of mentioning this, but there are some really stupid people in the world.
IF YOU REMOVE GUNS FROM LAW ABIDING CITIZENS, ONLY CRIMINALS WILL HAVE GUNS! And should I add, YOU MORONS!
Enough said. If you disagree I'd love to hear why...
