World

Chicago gun ban and implications – I surrender

by YankeeJim | March 2, 2010 at 07:58 am

162 views | 2 Recommendations | 3 comments

I have always been of the opinion that the right to bear arms is an antiquated right. Prohibiting guns would make the nation safer. The right to bear arms had its roots in the right of people to form a militia in case it is needed to keep the government in check. I think that we have matured well beyond this need.

Yet, there is the issue about individuals having the right to protect themselves in their home and property. I have to admit, there are places where many people have to live where police protection may not be adequate to protect the public. The criminal population in certain neighborhoods is so great that the good folks are outnumbered.

There goes my theoretical belief, I guess. If law enforcement was sufficient, there may be no need to bear arms. When it is not, people probably should have a right to personal protection.

"CHICAGO - A couple worries that burglars who tried to break in when the wife was home alone will return. A retiree fears the drug dealers and junkies just outside his window will attempt — again — to steal what he spent a lifetime earning. And a businessman wants to protect himself as he could when he was a police officer.

Together, they are the face of the most serious challenge yet to Chicago's 28-year-old handgun ban.

On Tuesday, the four will take their seats inside the U.S. Supreme Court as their attorneys argue a lawsuit that bears their names: David and Colleen Lawson, Otis McDonald and Adam Orlov."

0 See all footage | View Slideshow

Share: email story | add to any | | facebook | stumbleupon

recommend This comment thread is now closed

Albert Milliron

at 16:35 on March 7th, 2010

A good reason I like your writing, you point out the strengths and weakness in your argument. make you an intellectually honest person. I like that... Where have folks like you gone?