Byron's Blog

Anonymous believes The U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the illegal Washington D.C. hand gun ban re-affirmed what should have been obvious to every single out-of-touch, bombastic, self-serving politician -- that the U.S. Constitution means what it says and that you actually do have a right to protect yourself.

Got Guns?

by Anonymous

It took long enough, about ten score and 17 years, but finally the nation has some clarity about your fundamental right to own a hand gun and use it in your home to protect yourself from thugs who -- for some reason -- never really pay much attention to the voluminous restrictions that leave law abiding people vulnerable to vicious, murderous criminals.

The U.S. Supreme Court cut through the verbal noise that flies from the mouth of pompous, arrogant and elitist politicians in its ruling on District of Columbia v. Heller to say, you have a right to have a handgun in your home. Heller is Dick Heller, a security guard, authorized to carry a handgun, who merely wanted the right to have it in his home. He lost the trial, won on appeal and in the Supreme Court where the Justices re-read the Constitution very carefully and concluded that no where could they find an "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home."

The reaction from Mr. Heller, "I'm thrilled I am now able to defend myself and my household." The staid, tired and predictable reaction from the gaggle of anti-gun ne'er-do-wells, included big city mayors, full of empty words, who did their best to scare you into thinking that this is a harbinger of bloody street-level gunfights, where fire-power settles disputes and bullets ricochet off concrete sidewalks and steel buildings. What a crock.

Here's a point that seems to escape those blow-hard politicians -- seems the cities with the toughest gun laws often have the highest crime rates. The laws in Chicago, for example, are among the most stringent. Why then is there so much crime in Chicago? That's an easy one. It's because crooks have the guns and victims do not. Just think about it. You live in a rough neighborhood and the law says you cannot have a handgun in your house. Any criminal who picks up a weapon on the black market can come crashing into your home with little or no expectation that you're equipped to fire back.

You want another example. How's this? Just compare the number of murders in Chicago for 2007 with the rest of the county in which Chicago resides. There were 435 murders in the city and about 125 for the rest of Cook County combined. Remember, Cook County gun laws are more lax than Chicago's.

Now factor in population figures and apply a little math to the numbers. Here goes. The Cook County population is just under 5.3 million. Chicago's is around 2.8 million. That means Chicago comprises just over half the population of Cook County. Now the kicker -- nearly 80 percent of the murders in Cook County happen in the City of Chicago, where the restrictions on gun ownership are the toughest. Hmmm.

Say what you want. Those are the facts, but it's way easier for an uninformed or thick headed politician to stand in front of a crowd, pound a podium and say, "We must ban hand guns and get 'em off the streets." The people cheer, the politician smiles and the beat goes on -- gang members acquire guns illegally and use them to shoot each other and unarmed citizens, who only want to protect themselves.

No doubt your naive friends, who see the foundation of their viewpoint crumbling, will grasp at anything to bolster their stance and rail against accidental shootings. When the rant concludes simply say that you support gun rights, not gun proliferation. There's a difference. The anti-gun fanatics want you to believe that gun advocates want everyone to pack heat. You hear it all the time. Anonymous remembers one individual who shouted with red face and neck veins bulging, "Yeah, let's give guns to everyone, that's the answer! We can all just shoot it out when we have problems!"

The calm, measured retort -- the Second Amendment merely guarantees your right to have a weapon and the Supreme Court affirmed that reasonable rules are Constitutional. That means that it's perfectly acceptable to restrict gun ownership to law abiding citizens. There is nothing wrong with a law that requires guns to be registered. Heck, how 'bout routine, mandatory safety training. (The government could actually make a buck or two on that idea.) This alone would help prevent accidental shootings. What about background checks? Absolutely and a reasonable waiting period. Why not?

No, guns are not suitable for everyone who's entitled to own one. There are certainly plenty of people who do not want them around their children. Others simply do not want to have anything to do with them. You will not find any suggestion here that people with an aversion to firearms must or should have them, but many people who obey the law would be better served and protected if they have access to one.

There are millions of Real Estate Agents who ride around with strangers in their cars, or sit in an open house where people they do not know come in and out all day long. Do those men and women have a legitimate reason to carry a pistol? What about a jeweler who routinely transports extremely valuable merchandise? Is that person entitled to have a gun? What about a woman who lives alone in a tough neighborhood? A rapist breaks in and starts to attack. She can have 911 on speed dial and still not have police at her home quickly enough to prevent an assault.

One sad example of a murder that should not have happened involves the story of a woman named Ronayle White. She had an order of protection against her estranged husband, but he did not care and in May, 2002 he went to her house and killed her. She called 911, three times, but it took officers 17 minutes to arrive and when they did, she was dead. A 911 tape recorded two muffled pops during the final call. That was the gunfire that killed her. She did not have a gun, never had a chance and left behind a son.

The head of the Illinois State Rifle Association said it well. Police are not the first line of defense against crime. Individuals are, and no one, not the anti-gun lobby or anyone else can get around that reality. Justice Antonin Scalia made the point this way. He said the handgun is ideal for self-defense partly because "it can be pointed at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the police." You got that right, brother.

The idea that you might catch a .44 caliber slug to the chest during a break in would probably make you think twice, maybe even three times about it. You might even consider a career change. All this gets lost on those individuals whose hazy notions about self defense are based on fantasy and the idea that there's some magic bullet that will make guns go away. Thankfully, a majority of the Justices on Supreme Court had more clarity on the matter.