Protect my right to bear arms.

Source: "High court strikes down Chicago handgun ban"
http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/06/28/us.scotus.handgun.ban/index.html

Constitutional Connection: "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."

Analysis of Connection:
      'The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed'. Taken directly from the constitution, this quote causes many problems. In Chicago the strict handgun restriction is being constantly debated because it is 'unconstitutional'. Citizens are granted the right to bear arms, but where is the limit? Is it limited to individual states or our nation in whole? If cities are able to instill bans on things that are otherwise acceptable, under the constitution, then where do our real rights come from?.

     In this video and article 'High court strikes down Chicago handgun ban' a local Chicago resident wins the fight against the handgun ban. Otis McDonald, a 76 year old man fighting against the handgun ban, says that with this ban in place he is unable to protect himself from gang members and robbers. He plead his case all the ways up to the Supreme court where he won the case. Not only because he stayed persistant in his fight but because there was ample evidence that he indeed did have a right to bear arm. Whether it was to protect himself or for show, his right was protected by the constitution and Chicago's restriction could not withstand the battle.

     Mayor Richard Daley stated, "that person has a right to a gun in his arms, does he have the right to point a gun at his child, he's the parent. Does he have the right to point a gun at his spouse? Does he, those are valid questions to ask". That statement had very little, if anything, to do with the case. I believe it was uncalled for. Just because people want to fight for their right to bear arms does not mean that they will point a gun at their spouse or child! The people just want to protect themselves and their families if and when necessary. The handgun restriction prohibits them from doing so. Even though people are allowed to keep larger and more dangerous guns there are still people who cannot keep those in their homes or even use them properly, which give them a slim chance to protect themselves.  I am glad that they are taking the restriction on handguns back to the drawing boards to be reevaluated. I understand that they want to keep as many gang members and drug dealers from having a handgun, but a ban will do nothing but make them conceal the weapon even more and pose a even larger threat to their law-abiding fellow citizens.