And coming, not surprisingly, from Chicago. In the comments on this article:
Mayor Daley is quite often wrong about a great many things and he's probably wrong to spend taxpayer money fighting a losing court battle, but he's not wrong about handgun laws.
Then why is he wrong for fighting a losing court battle?
It's perfectly reasonable for a local law to say, "You can't kill each other. You don't need a handgun."
Two different things there, guy. Which you just don't seem to understand.
What is so outrageous about a ban on handguns?
Nothing, if you don't mind trashing parts of the Constitution because they offend you. And don't mind preventing honest people from having the most effective means of self-defense.
The posters here (as well as Steve Chapman) obviously believe otherwise, but I say you're wrong.
Good citizens don't "carry" and the Supreme Court decision in the DC case was a poor reading of the 2nd amendment -- which is intended to protect militia, not individual vigilantes.
Oh, it's so nice to have you universally decide what a good citizen does. And I just love you deciding that anyone who wants to carry for self-defense is a 'vigilante'. You see, the term came from some people who literally took the law into their own hands because their local LE and government were corrupt and/or unwilling to enforce the law impartially; your deciding that desiring the most effective means of self-defense- one of the most basic human rights- means you 'take the law into your own hands' betrays either ignorance, or a truly corrupted viewpoint. As the Supremes noted, the 2nd Amendment is based in a pre-existing right of individuals, not something granted by the government; and not something granted only to minions of said government.
It's disingenuous to call the ban worthless because the murder rate is high. Do you NRA members out there really believe the local murder rate will go down once the ban is lifted and handguns become cheaper and easier to come by?
Do you actually believe this has anything to do with the price of firearms? Then you ARE deluded; and I don't think the dirtbags and gangbangers are paying the same price honest citizens do to legally buy something. And, considering what the murder and other crime rates are in your 'handguns are banned paradise', do you actually think they'd get worse if honest citizens are armed?
Shoot each other if you must. I don't want or need a gun. But I may need some Kevlar.
You don't want a gun? Fine, no problem. It's your unilateral decision that nobody should be allowed to have one that pisses me off.
And let us note the repeated "Why do you need a gun?" and "You people just want to shoot someone" attitude, repeated by GFWs all over. Seems like their attitude is that you have to have an approved(by them and their favored politicians) reason to own something; and, again, the apparent belief that the only reason someone would want a firearm is a desire to kill.
Two things here, guy. On the second, I don't want to kill anybody; I don't know anyone who does. We do like having this means of self-defense available to us and to other honest people; we don't like the viewpoint of people like you that the means of self-defense should be limited to empty hands. Or would you be open-minded enough to allow us peasants to have pepper spray or tear gas?
And, guy, there's only one proper answer in a free society to your question: None Of Your Damned Business. As long as I'm not violating the law in my use of what I own, it's nobodys damn busines what I own; not yours not the governments, nobody.