Who Actually Has The Right To Bear Arms?

Chicago's gun ban has been in place for 28 years, it states that no one in the city of Chicago is allowed to carry a hand gun or an automatic weapon. I do admit that gun control and lack of gun safety is becoming an ever-increasing problem within our nation, but I do not think that our right to bear arms should be taken away. As a result of the gun ban many people do not feel comfortable in their homes due to the fact that they feel unable to protect themselves. I understand Chicago does not want guns in the hands of felons; however, it is necessary that guns are not confiscated from law-abiding citizens. Owning a gun deters burglary because if you have a gun in the house most criminals will get scared and run. It is the fear factor that gives gun owners an advantage. I believe that there should be some type of gun control, but I also believe people should have the right to bear arms in their homes. The second amendment was set in place for individuals to protect themselves when they believe it is necessary or when the police is unable to provide their attention immediately. Some people will argue that in a modern society we no longer need guns to defend ourselves because there are no wild animals, hostile Indians, or ruthless cowboys, they believe that the police are provided for that purpose. However I argue that police officers are limited by number and there are more criminals than ever before, also the massive number of people living in one area means that the police can never protect everyone. Many people who support gun control believe banning guns would reduce gun related crimes because it would be harder for criminals to obtain a firearm. But the truth is that criminals will always hold onto their guns, and by banning guns that leaves their victims unprotected. A person's second amendment should not be taken away from them because of the amount of crime occurring in the neighborhood.

The case being brought to the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the Chicago handgun ban is called McDonald vs. Chicago. Otis McDonald, 76, is a resident of Chicago whose life is threatened in his own home; therefore, he decided to sue Chicago for it's ban on handguns. McDonald believes his right to bear arms in not being protected by the city and he does not feel protected in his home. He states how he was threatened at gunpoint in his Morgan Park neighborhood. He states, "In my home, this is the only time I worry." Also stating that, "There's more guns coming into this city than the police can take away from them. So if I've got a gun, and if others have guns in their homes to protect themselves, then that's one thing that police would have to worry about less." Three times, he says, his house had been broken into; once he called police to report gunfire, only to be confronted by a man who told him he'd heard about that call and threatened to kill him. He and four other plaintiffs presented their case to the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday, March 2, 2010. McDonald is only looking to make his neighborhood safe and his ability to sleep well at night. I believe he and every other person in the U.S. should have the right to protect himself as it is written in the United States Constitution. No one should feel unsafe in their home, they should be able to protect themselves.

Sources

Vogue, Ariane De. "Supreme Court Hears Chicago Gun-Ban Case - ABC News." ABCNews.com - Breaking News, Politics, Online News, World News, Feature Stories, Celebrity Interviews and More - ABC News. 2 Mar. 2010. Web. 18 Apr. 2010. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Supreme_Court/supreme-court-hears-chicago-gun-ban-case/story?id=9780703.



Savage, David. "Supreme Court to Hear Challenge to Chicago Gun Law." Chicago Breaking News. 30 Sept. 2009. Web. 17 Apr. 2010. http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/09/supreme-court-may-decide-on-hearing-chicago-gun-cases.html.