Four against “The Machine”
Youtube video: Young Shatner tells the story about a woman who protects herself in her home with a hangun.
The Supreme Court is again taking a look at the 2nd Amendment and it’s relation to individual rights. The Left’s view is “A disarmed society is a crime-free society”. Basically, they are naive.
The place in American’s heart that the firearm holds is a long one. Were it not for farmers and hunters (and their weapons) we would possibly still be a British colony today.
The battle this time is over Chicago’s long held ban on guns. If anyone thinks that such bans help anything, they should note Chicago’s crime rate: In 2009, for the first time in 5 years, murders exceeded 500. Perhaps you can call it “Change you can die for”.
I often wonder about why people voted for then Senator Barack Obama for President. Surely, if you look at where he came from, you could see the effect he had as ACORN lawyer, Community Organizer, State Senator, and then U.S. Senator. Did Chicago improve via Obama’s beliefs? He is very anti-gun ownership.
The case brought to the Supreme court is not one by the NRA, although the group supports the goal of the suit. It was brought about by 4 concerned citizens, none of whom resemble the “avid gun nut” that the media would like to depict.
Take Colleen Lawson, for example. She and her husband recounted a day in 2006 when she almost had her home broken into by 3 men. Luckily they ran then they saw her, but what if they hadn’t? Lawson says she longs for a day when she can feel unafraid again, much like when her grandmother would keep a handgun in her apron.
“I knew without any doubt my grandmother would be able protect us,” she said. “I can’t say that to my children.”
Another one of the plaintiffs, remembers coming to Chicago as a young black man. There, he worked hard all his life to provide a home for his budding family. Today, the neighborhood is not the same. There are screams at night, gunshots, and the sound of breaking bottles. His own home has been broken into 3 times, and in one case upon calling the Police, his life was threatened.
It seems obvious that the criminals no longer fear the Police or the people.
Orlov, a former police officer, knows that banning handguns only provides a crime filled city of potential victims.
“The law only prohibits the actions of those who are law-abiding,” said Orlov, 40. “The more law-abiding the more likely you are to be vulnerable to the activities of criminals.”
Of course the “Machine” run by Mayor Richard Dailley hums along lopingly, with the innocent dead simply crushed in the gears. He says he is hopeful that the handgun ban will survive.
Liberalism, you see, is not about truth. It is about feelings. It is better to “feel” that banning guns will help bring crime down, than actually having it come down.
My take is that it is pretty easy to see that a good and law abiding person is little threat in the large scale of things. Criminals will always be able to get and carry guns, and they will hurt those they feel they can easily victimize.