Supreme Court Now Hearing Epic Gun Case

Did you know that for over thirty years people have not been legally allowed to have guns inside the city limits of Chicago? I call that picture "Gay Seth MacFarlane with a gun" by the by. This fact has just come to my attention. What, has Pol Pot been mayor in Chicago for 30 years? Hey, Chicago, in mother Russia, gun ban you! It does not seem as though people in Chicago would need the Supreme Court to ensure they have a basic right provided by the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, but these are crazy times we live in- beginning thirty years ago. The Supreme Court is now hearing the case after the court gave a ruling that was favorable to people who wanted to own guns in Washington D.C. about a year and a half ago. According to this story from ABCNews.com by Ariane de Vogue the D.C. ruling was the first time the court had ruled the Constitution protected an individual's right to possess guns inside the home. They had apparently ruled previously it was alright to possess guns in a hiding hole in your backyard. I feel bad for people in Chicago. If television has taught me anything it is Chicago is a big city with a lot of crime and I would definitely want a gun if I were going to visit, much less live, there. If nothing else, the lawyers arguing to lift Chicago's gun ban have a sympathetic figure at the center of their argument. Otis McDonald does not feel safe in his home and wants a gun to be able to protect himself. That is understandable, right? In 2008, 402 of the 412 firearm homicides occurred with the use of handguns so apparently someone has guns in the city limits. What is that? A gun law not working? Hogwash! Maybe it is the criminals who dare to defy your laws and do what they want anyway. Wait, that must be the explanation of the long cliched "If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns." "Now I get it," says the person who thought Alderaan (had to look up spelling) was a real place.

Heston says, "Bet you still can't do it, pussies!"