WRONG!
(It's an El Lay Times headline, so what do you expect?)
Government does not confer this right. The Second Amendment recognizes gun ownership as a preexisting right granted by God (or natural law, if you prefer.) The Constitution is a document drawn up by the several states charging the Federal Government to protect this right and not infringe upon it. Pretty damn simple for this Colorado boy...
False Dichotomy
But do individual rights enumerated (and upheld) in the Constitution supersede a city’s duty to protect the health and welfare of its citizens? Because that’s how the City of Chicago is describing its position:
Chicago Mayor Richard Daley’s response is that the federal government is not responsible for the health and safety of the citizens of Chicago; the city is.
Daley slips us a false dichotomy: Either ban all guns or we can't be safe.
A writer at The Moderate Voice gets it right:
So on the one hand we have an individual right, enumerated in the Constitution and upheld by the Supreme Court — just like freedom of religion, or speech, or assembly — but thus far only applied to federal jurisdictions.
On the other hand we have a city’s (or other local entity’s) duty to protect its citizens. Which should take precedence? [...]
Cities and other governmental entities cannot simply ban a Constitutional right. I’m somewhat amazed, frankly, that it took this long to get this issue decided.
The bogus liberal argument of imperious rulers like Mayor Daley presupposes, generally, that God-given rights cannot be reconciled with public safety, to wit: Gun ownership is a threat to the health and safety of Chicago's citizens.
That is demonstrably false. Anecdotal evidence to the contrary is everywhere. Concealed carry laws do not cause more crime. Anecdotal evidence suggests such laws bring the crime rate down. Knowing his "victim" might have the capacity to drill a .357 slug between his eyes makes a criminal think twice. A puny gun ban does not.
King Daley and his liberal comrades are not so foolish that they believes their own BS about gun ownership. Like so much of the progressive agenda, this is about power and control.
7 comments:
Silverfiddle,
I agree with what you say. However I differ on the choice of your word "Anecdotal".
It is my experience that the evidence you point to is overwelming and as such is well documented but alas well under-reported in the MSM.
The liberals just won't be happy until they strip away every God-given right of the American people.
If he doesn't want a gun fine, that's his choice. But he had better leave everyone else alone.
That's it Leticia. It's not enough they don' like something, they have to take it away from everyone.
I agree Christopher, but I couldn't lay my finger on any firm statistics, so I didn't make the claim.
youre right tis all about control..UGH!
Sure...Chicago has the authority under the constitution to ban guns, just like they can silence you, shut down newspapers that are detrimental to the public good, force you to convert to protestantism, judism, or islam...
We're talking Chicago, Venezuela, right?
PS. Populist government is a wonderful thing!
If the S.C.O.T.U.S makes gun ownership a National Right, we can kiss our RIGHT to BEAR ARMS good-bye.
Plain and simple.
Post a Comment