The right to bear arms...

So…the Supreme Court heard arguments yesterday in  McDonald v. City of Chicago.  For those of you who haven’t the faintest idea of what I am talking about, this is a very prominent 2^nd amendment case.  The previous famous case of a year or two ago, Heller v. DC was landmark in nature, as the Court found that the 2^nd amendment articulated a fundamental right to self defense.  But, the decision only applied to the Federal gov’t.  This new case asks the Court to apply the Heller ruling to the states, something in legal mumbo jumbo called incorporation.  Chicago has a total ban on all handguns, and Mr. Otis McDonald challenged the ban under the Heller ruling.  So, now you know what I am talking about.

 

Believe it or not, I am not sure how I feel about this case.  I further submit that this case has given all parties involved a severe identity crisis.

Lemme’ ‘splain- fundamental brass tacks- this case has nothing to do with the 2^nd amendment, but rather states rights.  Conservative peoples who favor a fundamental right to have guns and shoot stuff also tend to favor a Federal govmint that stays out of states bizness.  Liberal peoples who quake at the very sight of a firearm tend to favor a large central Federal govmint that has its hands in all sorts of nuances of everyday life.  Here is where the identity crisis is rearing it’s confused head- the liberal I-just-peed-my-pants-I-saw-a-gun are arguing for the Federal gov’t to stay out of state and local gov’t business, while the lets-watch-NASCAR-and-then-shoot-stuff crowd wants Federal intervention into State issues. 

While I completely agree that the right to self defense is a God given right, and so in that light it should be applied to the states just as the Due Process rights are, I do pause however at the notion that a state cannot enact it’s own laws.  I would be a hypocrite if I said it was ok for the Feds to force the states to allow handguns under the 2^nd amendment, but on the other hand say the Feds should stay out of the whole marriage thing and let the states decide for themselves.  If you don’t like California’s restrictions on guns, then don’t live there (and for a myriad of other reasons, you should move out anyway), same thing with Chicago.  Let these liberal bastions of…liberalness, uh…reap what they have sown.  It seems plain to me that these areas are falling apart rapidly- Detroit, Chicago, DC, etc.  These are cities that are run by people just to the right of Karl Marx, and they have extremely high crime, high taxes, and are on the verge of bankruptcy.  Let them fail.  Let their crime rates increase to the point of no return.  Please, please let them fail.  If you value your life, and want to be able to keep a firearm in the home for self defense- don’t live in these cities.  Let them implode like the Soviet Union.

Even with the same sex marriage issue, I don’t like the idea of a constitutional amendment.  I think every state should decide for themselves.  And in almost every state where it has been put to a vote, the voters have rejected the idea of same-sex marriage.  In most of the states that allow it, it was the decision of a handful of people on the courts- which is very wrong for a plethora of reasons.

I too am torn, I suppose after thinking about it, I would rather have the Heller decision incorporated into the states, than allow places like Chicago to be a little authoritarian society.  Especially if I believe the right to bear arms to be a fundamental right.  But I am still very confused…

What do you think?  I am actually curious to hear what the 3 people who read this blog think…