Will the Supreme Court Put an End to Gun Control?

The U.S. Supreme Court has announced that it will hear a case involving Chicago’s ban on handgun possession and ownership. Just last year, to the chagrin of Washington, D.C. officials, the high court in a 5-4 decision ruled that the Second Amendment gives an individual the right to possess handguns at his home for self-defense in the District, but it didn’t mention if the right extended to states and cities. A steady aim. That’s the scary part for Chicago and other liberal led cities that have similar bans on handgun ownership. Chicago vigorously opposed the Supreme Court hearing the matter because it already knows the outcome. Another 5-4 decision will come down the pike and invalidate its gun ban ordinance. What amazes me is how liberals can read something as plain as the Second Amendment and claim that what is says isn’t what it means. What is it about the “right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be abridged,” don’t they understand? How can they argue that the recent Supreme Court decision to overturn Washington D.C.’s gun ban doesn’t apply to other cities because the District is a federal sanctuary? The timing for gun advocates couldn’t be better. Fortunately for them the makeup of the court is still four strict Constitutional constructionist, four off-the-chart liberals, and one fence sitter. The fence sitter, Justice Kennedy, will probably vote the same as he did in the Washington, D.C. decision, and liberals will lose again and continue to blame “gun violence” on the weapon instead of where it really belongs: the individual who uses a gun to commit a crime. Liberals would deny U.S. citizens the right guaranteed in the original bill of rights to “keep and bear arms,” but claim that everyone has the “right” to health care. I don’t recall reading anything about that in the Constitution. Liberals think that if there was a total ban and confiscation of firearms, the murder rate would plummet. They believe the absence of firearms would prevent would be murderers from killing their intended victims. Doesn’t it make sense that a person hell-bent on murder would just shift tactics and use a knife or club instead? Well, not to do-good liberals. You see, they apparently believe that the mere presence of a firearm has such overwhelming influence on bone-headed people that it drives them to murder. How ridiculous. What they don’t mention is that thousands of crimes are stopped every year by armed citizens who had the ability to protect themselves and their families. Studies show that in states where citizens legally carry concealed firearms, fewer robberies and muggings occur when compared to states that do not allow concealed firearms. A robber sizes up his victim before pouncing, and if he believes his potential victim is armed with a firearm, he moves on to the next guy who obviously is not. Many Constitutional scholars believe the Second Amendment exists to allow citizens to revolt against the government if it should become too big and oppressive; after all, the founding fathers had just experienced second class citizenship at the hands of King George. But, liberals ignore historical facts and pretend the meaning of the Second Amendment relates only to the National Guard of individual states. Nice try, but the comma between mention of the militia and “right of the people to keep and bear arms” makes it clear the authors meant states can form a National Guard and citizens can possess and carry firearms. I suspect Justice Anthony Scalia is perturbed that cities like Chicago aren’t going along with the program he outlined in his Washington, D.C. decision. The decision he writes about this pending case could nullify most gun laws because of the “Shall not be infringed” clause. It will make great theater.