Tee Shirt Available at BustedTees.com
Why would you want “bear arms.” Their hairy and in short supply! It just seems like a big waste of time to us…Oh, not “bear” arms. Ah, we get it.
We here at USDemocrazy caught wind of pretty big law case about “bearing arms”. It is called McDonald v. City of Chicago, a case going to oral argument March 2.
This case is the latest development in the heated debate over the Second Amendment ( which involves this bearing arms business) and perhaps the most important yet.
We’ve got the rundown….
First, the current state of things. The Daily Beast tells us that:
Gun-rights advocates have seen a steady stream of victories and a major increase in gun ownership in recent years and are hoping to advance their cause further this week as the Supreme Court…
According to ScotusWiki, the current case (McDonald v. City of Chicago) asks the question:
Whether the Second Amendment is incorporated into the Due Process Clause or the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment so as to be applicable to the States, thereby invalidating ordinances prohibiting possession of handguns in the home.
And lucky for us, Huffington Post has a “layman’s” translation:
Until this point, the Second Amendment has explicitly applied only to the federal government and areas under its jurisdiction – such as the District of Columbia — and not individual states.
And so we ask, is this case a big deal? Notable or Negligible? WSJ LawBlog tells us:
McDonald v. City of Chicago has us as geeked up over a Supreme Court case as we think we’ve ever been….The stakes are unquestionably huge.
Where Do You Think He Comes Down on the Issue? Picture via PhotoBucket.
And now, ABC News tells us why Otis McDonald is challenging the gun law:
“In my home, this is the only time I worry,” McDonald said… So if I’ve got a gun, and if others have guns in their homes to protect themselves, then that’s one thing that police would have to worry about less.”
There is another right, however, that should not get lost: the right of people, through their elected representatives, to adopt carefully drawn laws that protect them against other people’s guns.
For more detailed info, head over to SCOTUS Blog.
So what do YOU think? Guns? No Guns? Big Fuzzy Bear Arms? The decision is yours.
In cases such as these, I believe it is always best to get back to basics by asking a few key questions, such as “What is the purpose of a gun?”, “What do you intend to do with it?” and last but not least “Is it perhaps not contradictory to expel children for taking a camping knife to school but allowing the sale and possession of deadly weapons?” A head-scratcher.
Why do the police and military need to have guns?
Great job Mr. McDonald! You have the right to defend yourself, Daly has his armed goons to protect him, you should at least have the right to protect yourself, your home, and your family. Score one for the good guy.
“What is the purpose of a gun?”, “What do you intend to do with it?”
To put a bullet in anyone’s butt that tries to harm me.