From behind the wheel of his hulking GMC Suburban, 76-year-old Otis McDonald leads a crime-themed tour of his Morgan Park neighborhood. He points to the yellow brick bungalow he says is a haven for drug dealers. Down the street is the alley where five years ago he saw a teenager pull out a gun and take aim at a passing car. Around the corner, he gestures to the weed-bitten roadside where three thugs once threatened his life.
"I know every day that I come out in the streets, the youngsters will shoot me as quick as they will a policeman," says McDonald, a trim man with a neat mustache and closely cropped gray hair. "They'll shoot a policeman as quick as they will any of their young gangbangers.
"To defend himself, McDonald says, he needs a handgun. So, in April of 2008, the retired maintenance engineer agreed to serve as the lead plaintiff in a lawsuit challenging Chicago's 28-year-old handgun ban. Soon after, he walked into the Chicago Police Department and, as his attorneys had directed, applied for a .22-caliber Beretta pistol, setting the lawsuit into motion.
When that case is argued before the U.S. Supreme Court on March 2, McDonald will become the public face of one of the most important Second Amendment cases in the nation's history.
The article describes at length the process whereby McDonald was selected to be the "poster boy" of the NRA-funded lawsuit. He is sympathetic. And I find no fault in lawyers trying to make their case as attractive as possible. But what I question is the concept itself.
Does anyone believe that Mr. McDonald will be able to defend himself against cold-blooded teenage killers if only he'd be permitted to carry a gun? I don't. He's an older man, with an older man's reflexes, who presumably is not a cold-blooded killer, who will be outnumbered every time he steps out of the house. Is a gun going to help?
Wouldn't having a gun in the situations he described actually have been a liability? Instead of having experienced a number of threats and incidents of intimidation, if he'd shown a gun, he'd most likely have been killed.
So, my conclusion is that although Mr. McDonald is a sympathetic figure-head for the Chicago gun movement, he's a poor example of the need for gun rights. A gun will not help his chances of survival, it will hurt them. Meanwhile, next time his house is burgled, the thieves may very well steal handguns as well as shotguns.
What's needed in Chicago and many places is fewer guns not more. Only by diminishing the total number of guns in America, as well as tightening up the gun control laws, do we stand a chance of diminishing gun crime.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
Wow. The more helpless an old man is, the safer he is.
ReplyDeleteRidiculous. The weaker a person is, the more attractive of a victim they are to predators. Who's more likely to be assaulted in this neighborhood, Mr. Mcdonald or me, a 6'3" male who's getting older every day but still strong enough to throw a punch? Mr. McDonald, obviously (and statistically).
Certainly 5 guys attacking me are going to overpower me. But if I decide to fight back, my punches will hurt. I might be able to knock some teeth out, break a rib or two -- maybe even send one of them to the hospital, making it probable they're headed for jail. Now they might send me to the hospital or morgue, but they will pay a price.
Attack Mr. Mcdonald in the fashion, and it's unlikely they will suffer any harm in return.
But put a gun in Mr. McDonald's hand ... and now he is formidable to anyone. And those same youths will now have a reason to avoid him, as weak or not if he gets one round off into one of their useless skulls -- no matter what happens to him, they are dead. Or caught.
Your advice is akin to that famous advice to women, "When rape is inevitable, lie back and enjoy it."
Yeah ... just be the best victim you can be, Mr. McDonald, and maybe the thugs are done beating up on you and taking your social security check you'll still be alive. So they can do it again next week. That's the America I want to legislate into being!
And as for too many guns ... years ago we started a war on drugs. But it seems like people who have money and want drugs and don't care about the law still get them quite freely.
and guns would be different because ... ?
The bottom line to me is ... self defense and pride are American traditions. Living in fear and being a good victim are not.
"Does anyone believe that Mr. McDonald will be able to defend himself against cold-blooded teenage killers if only he'd be permitted to carry a gun? "
ReplyDeleteNot if that gun is a .22. He needs to get himself a nice, full sized .38 Special or 9mm with high quality hollow point bullets. Save the .22 for tree rats and plinking.
That's just my opinion.
"What's needed in Chicago and many places is fewer guns not more. Only by diminishing the total number of guns in America, as well as tightening up the gun control laws, do we stand a chance of diminishing gun crime."
But what about all the other crime? Gun crime is just a small subset of crime in the US. Even if you eliminated gun crime completely, we'd still have assault, rape, robbery, burglary, etc. Are those crimes somehow morally superior to gun crime?
Stephen lives in a fantasy world where firearms magically transform anyone into a Bruce Willis character.
ReplyDeleteMcDonald is far, far more likely to kill himself or a loved one or an innocent bystander than some assailant. That's the cold, hard fact. And as he ages, those overwhelming odds only increase.
The important thing to remember, of course, is this case isn't about McDonald. He's just a dupe. It's about angry, scared white males who would void themselves while running for their guns if they saw Otis McDonald in their neighborhood.
--JadeGold
Mikeb says:
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone believe that Mr. McDonald will be able to defend himself against cold-blooded teenage killers if only he'd be permitted to carry a gun?
When did this turn into a question of carrying a gun? A victory for McDonald (and for freedom) would do nothing to make it any less illegal for him to carry a loaded, holstered firearm. This is all about a gun in the house--one that can be brought into action more quickly than a shotgun can.
Besides, though--even if this were about carrying a defensive firearm (whether concealed or not), and even if you were (bizarrely) correct in your assertion that disarmed defenselessness is safer than armed preparedness--that's his risk to take, or not, as he chooses.
Otis McDonald is a civil rights hero.
Zorro said, "Otis McDonald is a civil rights hero."
ReplyDeleteSure thing. Let's place gun rights on the same page as civil rights. Let's put NRA leaders and guys like old Otis on the same level as MLK.
This is the grandiosity of the pro-gun argument.
"Sure thing. Let's place gun rights on the same page as civil rights."
ReplyDeleteYou might want to read the Constsitution and the Bill of Rights sometime.
Mikeb says:
ReplyDeleteSure thing. Let's place gun rights on the same page as civil rights.
Let's do so, indeed.
As Oleg Volk says with his usual visual eloquence.
Mikeb also says:
Let's put NRA leaders and guys like old Otis on the same level as MLK.
I don't have nearly the respect for the NRA's current leadership, and their Neville Chamberlainesque approach to gun rights, that you seem to think I do, but I will point out that Charlton Heston picketed outside a segregated movie theater showing one of his films, and marched with Martin Luther King.
Otis McDonald isn't going to the back of the bus, and with him, we shall overcome.
"The article describes at length the process whereby McDonald was selected to be the "poster boy" of the NRA-funded lawsuit."
ReplyDeleteYou might want to check your facts.
The case is being financed by the 2AF, not the NRA.
But by all means, don't let facts get in the way.
"McDonald is far, far more likely to kill himself or a loved one or an innocent bystander than some assailant. That's the cold, hard fact."
ReplyDeleteNot fact but debunked Brady nonsense.
Myth, Urban Legend, never happened.
--Not Jade Gold
http://gunloon.com
From the articale: "So, the battle shifted to Chicago, an obvious second front because the city's handgun ban was widely considered the strictest in the nation behind the Washington law."
ReplyDelete"Handgun ban"?
It seems that the Chicago Tribune does not subscribe to JadeGold/Mikeb semantic games.
Mikeb: "Meanwhile, next time his house is burgled, the thieves may very well steal handguns as well as shotguns."
ReplyDeleteFrom the article: McDonald dismisses the suggestion that legalizing handguns would make it easier for weapons to fall into criminal hands. "They get all the guns they want anyway," he says.
Mikeb: The article describes at length the process whereby McDonald was selected to be the "poster boy" of the NRA-funded lawsuit.
ReplyDeleteI am not looking to make a big deal out of this, but here we see where one's assumptions or prejudices can overrule the perception of content. Read the article again, Mikeb. Not only does it say nothing about "NRA-funded," but the article does not mention the NRA at all.
It's not an omission. The McDonald case is funded and promoted by OTHER pro-gunowner/Second Amendment groups. In fact, the NRA is in conflict with the other groups. Although the NRA has filed a brief in support of McDonald, it argued the case on grounds that differ from those of McDonald's counsel (to their annoyance).
For reasons of ignorance or intent, antigunowner groups rarely mention the NRA's distance from the case.
Jade Gold lives in a fantasy world where weapons work only for criminals and police officers. Where unless you're Bruce Willis you can't defend yourself, and shouldn't try. It is a sad world where you are either Rambo or a defenseless sheep, and there is no middle ground.
ReplyDeleteIn Jaded Gold's world the current situation in Iraq, growing MORE secure by the day, could not have happened, because it wasn't police or army or Bruce Willis who stopped the bad guys from destroying the rebuilding, it was the "son's of Iraq." The citizens of Iraq, the fathers, who said enough and used their firearms to bring their neighborhoods back under control.
Fortunately, we don't live in Jaded Gold's world, where she voids herself everytime she thinks of someone defending themselves or their family who is not Bruce Willis. In our world neither citizens nor criminals have super powers, and either can come out on top if both start on an equal footing.
I think Mr. McDonald is a fine American, and salute him for taking this action. I would love to have him as a neighbor.
But to the rest of you ... please don't hate Jade Gold. She's not evil, though her actions are, she's just a dupe. She believes everything anti-gun groups tell her; that she is a worthless fool who would shoot herself if she had a gun and that her best choice in all cases is to be the best victim she can be.
So all we can do is continue to try and educate Jaded. Because if ignorance ever becomes criminal ... I'm afraid she and some other's who post on this blog will be walking the green mile.
Agree up to a a point, Stephen, but the last few lines were a wee bit harsh.
ReplyDeleteIMHO, the problem isn't guns per se, but guns in criminal hands. IIRC, Chicago has a handgun ban, yet there's a number of criminal uses of handguns.
Misuse, even criminal misuse, is not a legitimate reason to penalise the law-abiding, and should never be considered as such.
Yes, let's consider this in terms of civil rights...
ReplyDeleteWhere would Medgar Evers, Martin Luther King, and Malcolm X be with firearms?
Oh yeah, they were all assassinated...
with guns.
"Where would Medgar Evers, Martin Luther King, and Malcolm X be with firearms?"
ReplyDeleteAll three of them were gun owners.
Malcolm X holding an M1 Carbine with two jungle clipped magazines is probably one of his most famous pictures.
Only by diminishing the total number of guns in America, as well as tightening up the gun control laws, do we stand a chance of diminishing gun crime.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, Mikeb--with violent crime rates plummeting, concurrent with the number of privately owned guns dramatically spiking, is it getting any harder to keep a straight face while making such wild claims?
That little inconvenient truth must really stick in your craw, I bet.
What's probably worse is the fact that for your dream to come true--U.S. gun laws to grow dramatically more draconian than they already are--you have to count on "gun violence" getting vastly worse than it is now. Your entire agenda, in other words, falls apart without vastly more death and injury.
That veil of "pacifism" you wear is lookin' kinda tattered, Mikeb.
""I know every day that I come out in the streets, the youngsters will shoot me as quick as they will a policeman," says McDonald, a trim man with a neat mustache and closely cropped gray hair. "They'll shoot a policeman as quick as they will any of their young gangbangers."
ReplyDeleteTo defend himself, McDonald says, he needs a handgun."
Odd, that doesn't say anything about Mr. McDonald worrying about needing a gun in his house. It says when he goes OUT...
A .22 Beretta automatic very easy to conceal but if I was looking for a home defense weapon I would not be thinking .22.
Charlton Heston may have been pro-civil rights, but Chuck was not the NRA, he was a shill for them.
Mr. Evers, Mr. X and Mr. King's "gun ownership" protected them from nothing when it really counted.
I can only laugh at Stephen.
ReplyDeleteIs he seriously suggesting that we compare the US to the utopia of...wait for it...Iraq? Yessir, I think we all aspire to know the joys of Iraq.
As for Iraq growing more stable, I think most impartial readers would wince at such an assertion.
--JadeGold
Zorro, You really have a way with words.
ReplyDelete"violent crime rates plummeting"
"the number of privately owned guns dramatically spiking"
Keep spinning it brother.
The truth is it's too early to make such sweeping claims. But, I admit if things continue like they are, it may become abundantly clear. Time will tell.
Charlton Heston may have been pro-civil rights, but Chuck was not the NRA, he was a shill for them.
ReplyDeleteI can't help but laugh at the sheer idiocy and factual inaccuracy of this statement.
Heston was the PRESIDENT of the NRA for several years, hardly just a "shill"
Too early?
ReplyDeleteAre you living under a rock MikeB?
Gun sales have been up substantially the past 2+ years. Do you dispute this.
Violent crime rates have been plummeting according to the FBI. Is the FBI lying?
However you choose to spin it, Democommie, there is nothing in the McDonald v. City of Chicago lawsuit that would legalize carrying a handgun, and you seem to have conveniently ignored this part of the article:
ReplyDeleteAlthough he keeps two shotguns in the house, he says those weapons would be difficult to handle against an assailant.
"I would like to have a handgun so I could keep it right by my bed," he says, "just in case somebody might want to come in my house."
And Mikeb, I'm not "spinning" anything--just pointing out that violent crime went down--way down, at the same time that privately owned firepower spiked enormously (historically, in fact). This, during the worst economic distress in decades--generally considered a harbinger of more crime.
Tell me this, Mikeb--if violence continues its nosedive, while gun ownership continues to increase, do you plan to abandon your calls for more draconian regulation, or will you instead choose to abandon the fiction that what you're about is reduction of violence, rather than reduction of freedom?
One more thing. Does anyone else here appreciate irony? If so, here's a nice, tasty helping of it:
ReplyDeleteHe [McDonald] became interested in gun rights about 2005, when Mayor Richard Daley was pushing a statewide ban on assault weapons. Concerned that his shotgun might be outlawed under the proposed ban, McDonald attended several gun-rights rallies in Springfield, where he says he was one of the few people from Chicago and, he notes with a laugh, probably the only black person.
At the rallies, he caught the eye of a Valinda Rowe, a gun-rights activist who works for IllinoisCarry.com, a group that favors the legalization of concealed and open carrying of weapons. When Rowe heard that Gura was looking for Chicago plaintiffs, she passed along McDonald's phone number.
In other words, what got this ball rolling was Mayor Daley's (I think I forgot to mention that his ugly mug is a frequent guest of honor on targets at our family range sessions) sick, evil insistence on yet more gun laws.
Mmm--the taste of irony.
I just have to laugh at Jaded Gold. Apparently she doesn't realize the increase in Security in Iraq that has taken place in the last few years and who was responsible for it; the citizens of Iraq. They've got a ways to go, but they are light years ahead of where they've been.
ReplyDeleteHer views of the world and American culture make everybody but Mikeb and Democommie wince.
Please, Stephen--keep making the argument that if we just have more guns, one day we could be like Iraq.
ReplyDeleteDoubtless this will lead to many converts to your cause as most Americans wish their country to resemble Baghdad.
--JadeGold
"Mr. Evers, Mr. X and Mr. King's "gun ownership" protected them from nothing when it really counted."
ReplyDeleteWould not owning a gun have protected them more?
Jade, MikeB & Demo constantly claim that crime will drop if we can just cut down on the number of guns.
ReplyDeleteOf course recent events prove them wrong. Gun purchasing has been at RECORD HIGHS the past few years while violent crime continues to drop. (including of course huge spikes in sales of what they claim are the most dangerous guns, "Assault Weapons" - Loaded with evil Hornady TAP no doubt)
They refuse to acknowledge this because it is unbelievably destructive to their emotionally-based ideology.
LOL Jadegold ...
ReplyDeleteAnd please ... just keep repeating the same anti-gun talking points no matter how often they are disproven. It's why the number of people who favor a handgun ban has dropped from 60% to around 30% in a few decades. It's why Pres Obama signed a CCW law for national parks, a law to transport guns on Amtrak, and we came within 2 votes in the Senate of passing nationwide CCW.
What you're doing is working (for us).
Thanks!
mikey:
ReplyDeleteCharlton Heston was a figurehead. You do know that he never had a position of any power, yes? He was a useful idiot as far as Wayne LaPierre and his fellow NRA were concerned. You can worship him as much as you like, he was never anything more than the public face of the NRA's PR programs.
Zorro:
Thanks for proving Mikeb30200's point that people who can't properly use a gun should not be getting more of them. He has shotguns in the house and he's going to rely on a .22 that he can have with him in bed? Right.
Zorro:
ReplyDeleteSo, Mr. McDonald validates Mike 30200's comment that people not being able to wield a weapon effectively will not be safer for having one. He's got shotguns but he can't keep those by his bed? Bullshit. He wants a piece that he can put in his pocket and show them perps what it means when they mess with a real man.
mikey:
Chuck Heston was a figurehead. Do you really think he gave orders to the likes of Wayne LaPierre and company? Of course you know better, but it was an easy out if you could get someone to agree to it. Heston never had the ability to do anything but cheerlead, at which he excelled. I think he was getting a bit senile towards the end, but in that regard he was still a cut above you.
democommie: "Chuck Heston was a figurehead."
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure what your point is. Do you doubt that Heston believed in what he said and did for the NRA?
Yes, in the NRA the Executive VP has more power than the NRA Prez. LaPierre runs the show, with the backing of the NRA Board and voting membership. But (for example) Marion Hammer was and is a strong force for gunowners before, during, and after her NRA presidency, which is not unusual.
Also, opponents of the NRA have attacked Heston to much the same degree as supported have praised him.
I realize the lawsuit is about having guns in the home, but Old McDonald was talking about having one to protect himself on the street.
ReplyDelete"Figurehead" is a good word for him because the last thing he needs in the world is a handgun. He'd be dead before he could get it unholstered.
At home what's he gonna do against hungry agile burglars?
What he really needs are security bars on his windows and a better front door.
At home what's he gonna do against hungry agile burglars?
ReplyDeleteAccording to you and Demo he should lie there and let them execute him.
Why do you assume that an older person would be unable to effectively use a handgun?
Just another one of your bullshit claims?
Mikeb says:
ReplyDeleteI realize the lawsuit is about having guns in the home, but Old McDonald was talking about having one to protect himself on the street.
Whatever you think McDonald was talking about doesn't matter, since this lawsuit changes nothing about whether or not McDonald can legally carry a loaded gun in public. In fact, if he does, Mayor Daley can do just like his hero Mayro Bloomberg did: stop and frisk a black man, catch him with a gun, and arrest another "gun felon"--saving the world from dangerous people like loving father Jason Baez and old Otis McDonald.
And you can cheer them on.
Oh, and Mikeb? Whatever you think of McDonald's planned security arrangements, those are his decision to make--not yours. I know you would prefer to keep him disarmed, just like the Klan used to prefer keeping black men disarmed, but that doesn't give you the right to do so.
ReplyDeleteFishy Jay:
ReplyDeletemikey said that Heston was the PRESIDENT of the NRA as if that meant he wasn't a shill. He was a shill, plain and simple. His presidency at the NRA had not a jot of power attached to it.
Zorro:
Now that it's pretty apparent--even to you--that Mr. McDonald's intention in getting a .22 might NOT be about defending himself IN his home you can fall back on the "cold, dead, fingers" justification.
Democommie says:
ReplyDeleteZorro:
Now that it's pretty apparent--even to you--that Mr. McDonald's intention in getting a .22 might NOT be about defending himself IN his home you can fall back on the "cold, dead, fingers" justification.
I suppose I can do that, but I have not done so, and don't intend to. Mr. McDonald seems to have pretty competent representation for the defense of his fundamental human right--his civil right--to self-defense, so I don't think he needs me.
My point was simply that whatever you, whatever Mikeb, and whatever I think of Mr. McDonald's planned security arrangements is irrelevant. None of us have any say in those decisions, and none of us should.
Democommie says:
ReplyDeleteNo, no. Only morons like you and mikey. There are oodles of responsible gun owners, I know a number of them. They think that people like you and mikey make it hard for the rest of them to have a dialogue with other folks.
Hey, Mike W., we seem to have gotten the ultimate compliment on our intelligence: being called "morons" by Democommie. I feel a little bad about picking on Democommie all the time, after that.
Come to think of it, Mikeb must think Democommie is complimenting us, too--he has recently said that he "will not tolerate" namecalling on his blog, so clearly he wouldn't have published Democommie's comment if he thought it to be derogatory.
As for having "a dialogue" with supporters of draconian gun laws, piss on that. For dialogue with the citizen disarmament lobby, I'll borrow a page out of General Anthony McAuliffe's book, when called on to surrender Bastogne to the Nazis: "NUTS!"
And no, Mikeb, before you accuse me of "grandiosity"--I'm not comparing gun owners' situation to that faced by 101st Airborne during the Battle of the Bulge--just borrowing a great way to express what I think is the perfect negotiating stance.
Zorro said, "he has recently said that he "will not tolerate" namecalling on his blog,"
ReplyDeleteSorry, but either that's taken out of context or your mischaracterizing what I have said several times, which is this:
I try to give people as much leeway as possible on violating my commenting policy. Only the most persistent offenders get their remarks deleted. It has nothing to do with what side of the argument they're on.
Mainly I try to avoid the name calling and personal attacks myself.
Zorro, You've used the word "irrelevant" a few times in rapid succession. Is that sorta like being a nihilist? Are you a nihilist in addition to the other labels you said you'd be proud to wear?
ReplyDeleteZorro, You've used the word "irrelevant" a few times in rapid succession. Is that sorta like being a nihilist? Are you a nihilist in addition to the other labels you said you'd be proud to wear?
ReplyDeleteNo--have never thought of myself as nihilistic--I'm kinda amused that anyone would see me that way, actually. In my recent use (overuse, perhaps--sorry--I'll try to express myself in a more aesthetically pleasing fashion, in the future) of the word "irrelevant," I think it has every time been applied to yours or Democommie's opinion of my parenting; yours, Democommie's, or my own opinion about Mr. McDonald's security plans--etc. My meaning was simply that sure--we can have our opinions--but why should those opinions matter to anyone else?
It's not about nihilism, it's about the freedom not to be ruled by other people's opinions.
democommie: "He (Heston) was a shill, plain and simple. His presidency at the NRA had not a jot of power attached to it."
ReplyDeleteNo more or less power than other NRA presidents (although yes, that's less power than some other NRA officers).
Also, Heston was in it for his convictions, not just as hired help. And being the main public face and spokesperson of the NRA made him a lightning rod for some nasty attacks by opponents of the NRA.
That having been said, you HAVE made your point: I agree that Heston did not command the NRA.
I'll take being called a "moron" by Democommie as a compliment.
ReplyDeleteThe more he does it the more I know he's a juvenile man with absolutely no hope of engaging in intellectual discussion.
His inablilty to respond rationally, factually & intellectually merely shows everyone that his positions / opinions have no merit whatsoever.
Zorro said, "It's not about nihilism, it's about the freedom not to be ruled by other people's opinions."
ReplyDeleteThanks, that's good.
So, we're told that Charlton Heston was a "figurehead," because of his lack of actual power within the NRA. This means, apparently, that the intersection of his advocacy for both desegregation and for gun rights can be safely dismissed . . . for some reason.
ReplyDeleteOddly enough, we're also told that disgraced Oath Keeper Charles Dyer's alleged crimes can be held against the entire Oath Keepers movement, because:
That might be true is he were a simple member. But when the person is a leader, one who makes speeches and recruits others, then it becomes more than one man's evil and it does reflect on the entire group.
Are we to believe, then, that Dyer held more power within the Oath Keepers, thus imposing more responsibility on the organization as a whole for his evil, than Heston held as president of the NRA (he certainly made speeches, and most likely helped quite a lot with recruiting), or is it that the evil of a supposedly important member spreads to the entire group, but the good does not?
As for Mr. McDonald, we're told that he is both a "dupe" and a "figurehead."
So, tell me--what does that make Roy Innis National Chairman of the Congress of Racial Equality (for over 40 years) and NRA board member? Two of his sons were shot to death, so he presumably knows some of the arguments against guns, yet his is still a fervent voice in favor of gun rights, and he uses that voice to point out the racism of restrictive gun laws. For example (in reference to public housing authority gun bans):
“These bans are racist. The gun laws in general have an inception in racism,” Innis told the Caesar Rodney Institute. “The old definition: a free man is free to bear arms. There’s always a connection to being able to bear arms and freedom, and therefore denial is clearly racist.”
Another example:
To make inexpensive guns impossible to get is to say that you're putting a money test on getting a gun. It's racism in its worst form.
Another "dupe" and/or "figurehead," ya' think?
So, Mikeb, any opinion on the case against D.C.'s carry ban? Is Tom G. Palmer a "dupe" and a "figurehead," too, his homosexuality cynically exploited by the "gun lobby"?
ReplyDeleteI know you like to claim that gun rights advocates disingenuously speak of rights and Constitutional justification as an intellectual smokescreen to obscure a more base motive ("liking guns"). What do you think of this part?
To be sure, Palmer says, he enjoys firing guns. He grew up with them and learned at a young age how to handle them. If he wins the lawsuit, he'd happily carry one in public. But really he's interested more in the idea of guns, in the political and moral debate over gun ownership, than in the guns themselves.
Palmer likes to point out that Levy doesn't even own a firearm. "He just believes in the rule of law and the Constitution, and that is important to me as well," Palmer said. "You don't have to be a gun owner to take the Constitution seriously. I'm not religious, but I believe just as strongly in the exercise of free religion."
Very well stated, I think.
And I gotta love this:
Lowy, the Brady Center lawyer, wants to make it clear that "this case isn't about Mr. Palmer or what anyone thinks of him. If you recognize a constitutional right to carry loaded guns on the streets of Washington, what you're saying is that thousands of people have the right to carry loaded guns."
Palmer couldn't agree more.
That Brady Campaign ninny is a hoot, isn't he?
What do I think about Tom and his lawsuit against D.C.? Well, I think it's really sneaky of the pro-gun crowd to use such unconcealed incrementalism, first it was D.C. vs. Heller, now look.
ReplyDeleteAnd when he said this, I had a thought or two.
"The Second Amendment guarantees Americans the right to "keep and bear arms," and "bear," he says, "means to carry.""
I'll phrase it in a question. Why do you guys leave out the part about "the militia?" This guy's talking about protecting himself on the streets of Washington, but that's not what the 2nd Amendment was about at all.
I realize it's not up to me, but since we're talking about it, I reject totally the 2nd Amendment justification for gun ownership. You want to say you like guns, that you need them for protection, fine, let's talk about it. But this Constitutional justification is wrong. It's been bastardized and twisted through the centuries into something unrecognizable.
Those somewhat ancient writings need to be examined with today's relevance in mind. The 1st works fine, the 2nd does not.
Mikeb says (my emphasis added):
ReplyDeleteWell, I think it's really sneaky of the pro-gun crowd to use such unconcealed incrementalism, first it was D.C. vs. Heller, now look.
Er, Mikeb? At risk of causing you to lose respect for my intelligence (or perhaps there's not much respect there to lose)--how can something that is "unconcealed" be "sneaky"? Sure, I've heard the expression "hidden in plain site," but it never occurred to me that anyone thought we of the "gun lobby" would stop short of Constitutional recognition of the right to be publicly armed. I sure as hell don't think we tried to hide that fact--if we did make such an effort, it was a damned poor one.
Why do you guys leave out the part about "the militia?"
You want to talk about the militia? OK--let's. We could talk about the fact that Heller ruled that the right to keep and bear arms is unconnected to militia service. We could talk about how much sense that ruling makes, in light of the fact that the Second Amendment protects the right of the people--not the militia.
We could even talk about the fact that whenever anyone does form a militia, the mass media and hate groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center hysterically characterize them as something akin to terrorist organizations. In other words, you want to restrict the right to militias, but you (or at least your ideological allies) seem to get your knickers in a twist whenever a militia is formed.
You want to say you like guns, that you need them for protection, fine, let's talk about it.
What's to talk about, Mikeb? You've made pretty clear that you also reject armed self-defense. We have Constitutional protection for our rights, and we'd be fools to give that protection up, just because you "reject" it.
Mikeb you could be just the liberal anti-gun mouthpiece that Dick Daley wants.Tho he has plenty.
ReplyDeleteI can't be sure if it is guns you are attacking or Mr McDonald. Both I suppose but you appear to know very little about either. I have hunted with McDonald too many times to tell & I promise you he can wield that Winchester 20 gauge as well as most. What does his age have to do with defending himself?
It is as natural to defend ones self at ten yrs old or eighty yrs old but at eighty I want a gun to help in my defense.He does too.I seen Otis McDonald put six rounds from my 9mm in a twelve inch target
at twenty yards. I think intruders might just be in very deep crap if they kicked his door down and
they met in the same room of his home. A man is bigger than a twelve inch target. If you don't want a handgun thats your choice but not everyone feels the same so why interfere with their choice? The handgun ban has not accomplished anything in all these years. Arm the honest hard working people that can qualify for a handgun & you will see crime begin to reduce.The criminals will not be applying for a FOID card since they have had hand guns forever. Now it is time the worm turns and I bet they can't get the FOID cards printed fast enough in Chicago when the highest court overturns the Chicago gun ban....
Zorro, My use of "sneaky" was another attempt at humor.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous, Thanks for sharing your personal experience with us. I'm looking forward to seeing what happens in Chicago over the next couple years (I'm already counting on a big victory for the gun rights crowd in this one).