The case, McDonald v. City of Chicago, stems from a gun ban in the violent city that did not allow citizens to purchase handguns - a gun that is only used for one thing, killing people. In a previous case, District of Columbia v. Heller, the same 5-4 majority ruled that the second amendment prohibits the government from denying an individuals right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.The recent ruling overturns and contradicts a 200 year consensus that the second amendment guarantees the right of states to form militias, but not an individual right to bear arms out of self-defense. Furthermore, the recent decision was a combination of both the second amendment and fourteenth amendment, which says no state shall deprive any person of “life, liberty or property without due process of law." But over the years the right-wing judges on the court have used the due-process clause to apply certain amendments in the Bill of Rights to states and local municipalities, while leaving out others like individual's right to a fair trial.
To understand the second amendment maybe we should first look at the language. It reads as follows: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The fatal flaw in the argument of the right-wing members of the court and gun owners, is that the second amendment, as you can see, says nothing about individuals having the right to own guns for self-defense - a ruling the court declared to be constitutional two years ago in a previous case. But instead of upholding the "original intent" of the clause, the right-wing justices on the court, who outnumber the liberal justices, 5-4, have decided to interpret the core of the constitution to fit their party's political agenda. They have also changed how the country views these laws as they have time and time again attempted to spin such rulings to make people believe that they are holding to the "original intent" of the Founding Fathers. Of course if you have ever studied the Founding Fathers you would see that they have nothing in common with the right-wing nuts that are infiltrating, and attempting to destroy a country that so many have fought so valiantly to uphold. For if you take a closer look at conservative politics you would see that members of the Tea Party, who have hijacked and contorted the beliefs of the Founding Fathers, are more like King George than Thomas Jefferson.
But it should be no surprise that the Supreme Court continues to be dominated by right-wing views instead of what are supposed to be unbiased interpretations of the constitution. For they are the same court that trumped the "equal protection" argument to justify its decision to appoint George W. Bush to the White House. What we are witnessing today, is a generation of justices that have no understanding of unbiased rule. For in today's society there is no room for unbiased thinking, it's a with us or against us mentality, which makes you wonder why they even bother having interviews for nominated Supreme Court justices like the one we are currently witnessing with Elaine Kagan. It doesn’t matter because the wing-nuts on both sides will fill their decisions with opinions of their party and whatever news station they watch, instead of a fair interpretation of the laws.
But what does this mean for the city of Chicago: Well first they will have to rewrite the current law to make it enforceable under the constitution. And hopefully for the people of Chicago they will be able to create a new law that will allow for it to be constitutional, while simultaneously protecting its citizens from handguns. For in Chicago alone they average 40 shootings a day and boast 45 gun stores in the city's 13 mile radius. It could be argued that people need guns to protect themselves from criminals, which is a legitimate argument, but is the answer to protecting people from shootings to allow every individual to posses a gun at home and in public? Is a city filled with guns really the answer to a safer city?
Bill Maher, host of Real Time on HBO, said on Larry King the other night that he owns a gun and would not give it up. However, he made it clear that his gun is kept in his home and he did not agree with allowing any idiot with a gun to be able to possess it in public. Joking, he said, "Because you know the best way to protect your children in public is through cross-fire" (I paraphrase, but you get the point). And the point is that if we have people shooting each other in the streets like something out of the Wild West, although they too had gun laws, innocent people, including children, are going to be killed. But that's ok because at least the "constitution" is being upheld and the "good guys" with guns are protecting us from the "bad guys" with guns.
It's just funny how the people who live in rural areas, where gun deaths occur once every decade, are always trying to uphold their rights to bear arms, while people in cities, where guns actually pose a major threat, are the ones trying to block such rights in order to protect themselves and their loved ones. But of course none of this would be a problem if we had a Supreme Court that put truth over politics.
Maybe it's time this left-wing nut goes out and purchases himself a handgun, so in case some right-wing nut decides to push his political views and gun in my face, I will be prepared!
God Bless America!
No comments:
Post a Comment