THE RIGHT OF IT
Written By: Jenn…N.W.Wolfpac
Most cities in the United States have a sign as you enter the city limits, welcoming visitors. Some have catchy little phrases like, “City of roses” or “Pride of the Prairie” to impress those visiting. Chicago, Illinois’ welcome sign should hold a warning. I was thinking something along the lines of, “Leave your Constitutional rights at the city limits”.
In the city of Chicago, the last 28 years have been good years to be a criminal. While law abiding citizens have suffered under a handgun ban, the criminals of that city have been carrying on with business as usual. In a typically moronic move by the local government, a law was passed making it illegal to own an unregistered firearm. All firearms must be registered with the local police department. Now, on the surface, that doesn’t sound so bad. After all, if a gun-owner isn’t doing anything illegal, they shouldn’t mind registering their weapons, right? But, what happens when you can no longer register a handgun with the local police department? It becomes illegal to own one.
Chicago didn’t come right out and ban handguns. The sneaky little bastards just made it impossible to register one, thereby making ownership of the handgun illegal. Of course, in a generous move, they allowed the handguns already registered to be grandfathered-in. That way, no one would be screaming and hollering about weapons they own being confiscated.
Well, one man is screaming and hollering, and taking it all the way to the United States Supreme Court. Otis McDonald is a resident of Chicago and he isn’t taking this rights-violation lying down. When he wanted a handgun for protection against gang-violence and was denied, Otis filed an appeal with the Supreme Court to over-turn the handgun-ban in Chicago, citing that it was unconstitutional. One would think that the over-paid morons in City Hall would have figured that out without having to be told. One would think that with all of those tax dollars they collect, they would be able to buy a clue, but apparently not. I guess someone needs to sit down with them and explain what that whole pesky Bill of Rights thing is.
Otis McDonald isn’t trying to be Rambo and he isn’t looking for trouble. In a city like Chicago, however, trouble comes knocking a little too often for its law abiding citizens. Instead of being able to face that trouble with some degree of protection, they find themselves at the mercy of merciless criminals. That’s what Otis has a problem with. “That’s all I want…just a fighting chance,” he said, “Give me the opportunity to at least make somebody think about something before they come in my house on me.”
Not an unreasonable request to those of us who value life and liberty, but I guess Chicago’s City Hall doesn’t share those values. Surprise, surprise.
With the crime rate in Chicago being one of the highest in the nation, (the murder rate alone is roughly 2.7 times higher than the national average), it’s no wonder that Otis McDonald feels the need to own a handgun. In fact, the violent-crime rate in the city of Chicago is about 2.18 times higher than the national average, causing residents like Otis to question their safety in their own homes. So, crime-rates are high, criminals are packing heat, the residents fear for their safety, and the imbecilic City Hall is telling them that they aren’t allowed to protect themselves. Gee, when can I move in?
Despite City Hall’s attempts to keep a strangle-hold on their citizen’s rights, however, men like Otis McDonald aren’t giving up without a fight. Taking it to the Supreme Court, he is attempting to put right this tyrannical wrong.
One argument before the Supreme Court is whether or not the 2nd Amendment should be incorporated into state and local laws, just as most other amendments in the Bill of Rights have been. I’m sorry, maybe I’m slow, but aren’t we as Americans supposed to be guaranteed our rights under the Bill of Rights no matter what state or city we live in? Is not the Bill of Rights a legal document detailing what the government, be it city, state, or federal, are and are not allowed to legislate? If I have the right to keep and bear arms, shouldn’t that right be mine no matter where I live within the United States?
Otis McDonald’s attorney also asked that the Supreme Court use a rarely used provision of the 14th Amendment to over-turn the handgun ban in Chicago. This section states, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
The Supreme Court is unwilling to address the “privileges and immunities” part, content to stick with the “due process” instead. Some legal scholars believe that if the high court embraced the “privileges and immunities” clause, it would open the door to reviewing a huge range of issues, such as property rights and same-sex marriage. God forbid the federal government be forced to recognize its own hypocrisy! Instead, they’ll just stick to this one matter at hand and hope that none of us realizes just how many ways they trample on our rights and break the laws they swore to uphold.
While arguing his case to the Supreme Court, Chicago’s attorney, James Feldman, told the justices, “Firearms are designed to injure and kill.” Huh, go figure. I guess that’s why the criminals favor them so much.
In seeming support of Chicago’s handgun ban, Justice Stephen Breyer said, “Chicago says that their gun ban has saved hundreds, including—and they have statistics—lots of women in domestic cases.” I wonder if good old Justice Breyer ever considered the possibility that if more women owned handguns, there might be a lot less domestic cases to begin with? Perhaps if men with a penchant for abusing women knew that their wife or girlfriend owned a .357, they would be less likely to beat the crap out of them when dinner ran a little late.
Justice Breyer was also quoted as saying, “…there is always a big area where it’s free speech versus a whole lot of other things, but not often free speech versus life. When it’s free speech versus life, we very often decide in favor of life.” Maybe I just don’t watch the news often enough, but I can’t recall ever seeing a case where words managed to kill someone. However, a desperate criminal wearing a ski mask and demanding your wallet at gunpoint…well that situation has definitely managed to kill a few people. Imagine if the scales were evened up a bit…imagine that the victim of a mugging had their own gun and used it to defend themselves. Not only would that person be defending their own property and life, but they would also be guaranteeing that criminal wouldn’t have the chance to threaten the safety of another.
For myself, I find this entire debate to be frustrating in the extreme. To dictate a person’s right to defend their life, family, or property is not only insulting, but also egotistical in the extreme. Though I’ve come to realize that there is no lack of ego amongst those in positions of power all across this nation, I find that I cannot abide the excusing of it any longer. How dare a government, no matter their ridiculous claims of ‘common good’, dictate to me or anyone else their right to defend themselves, their families, or their property? How dare anyone tell another person that they do not have the right to defend themselves, those they love, and the property that they have worked tirelessly to attain?
I am a living, breathing, thinking human being. As such, there are certain rights that I was born with. These rights are not rights that were given to me by another person. They are not rights that were bestowed upon me for being a citizen of this country, or that country. These are rights that no one has the right to legislate, dictate, or take away. The most important of those inalienable rights is the right to defend my life, the lives of my family, and to protect the property that I have worked for. No one, be it a single person or a governing body, has the right to dictate my ability to engage in that right.
No matter the final decision of the Supreme Court on the Chicago handgun-ban, I encourage all people to seriously consider the ramifications of allowing anyone to dictate our rights concerning our own protection. I’ll even go a step further in saying that this thought process shouldn’t stop at the borders of the United States. People all over the world need to stop, take a good look around them, and think long and hard about the rights that are being taken from them one at a time. Peoples of all nations need to decide for themselves if they will stand idly by while those in positions of power wage a war against our most basic of human rights.
There are those out in the world that will say that I should trust in my government to know what is best for me. They will try to tell me that I cannot possibly make these decisions for myself because I cannot possibly comprehend the complex plans they have for me, my country, and my world. To them I say, you’re wrong…I have the right of it.
Editors Note: I found it relevant to add this image of the Tytler Cycle. In the USA we are on the far end of Apathy, and Going into Dependence. Universal Health Care; agri-corps controlling almost all of the worlds food production, etc. We find ourselves almost close to complete dependency at the moment. Without you, doing something, we will soon be back in the Bondage phase.
RandyMack