"Why can’t I go to the Supreme Court and sit there with a gun and listen to the arguments? If a gun is so important to us on the street or someone’s home, why can’t I go to the Supreme Court and sit there with a gun? I’m not gonna shoot anyone. But, I have a right to that gun. Why can’t I go see my congressman who doesn’t believe in gun laws? Why can’t I carry my gun into congressmen’s offices or go to his home and knock on his door and say, ‘Don’t be worried. I have a gun. You want me to have a gun.’ Why is it they want to be protected by all the federal money … to protect all the federal bureaucrats, but when it comes to us in the city there’s no protection?"

Chicago Mayor Richard Daley on the likely overturn of Chicago’s 28 year old handgun ban by the SCOTUS.  More from the Sun-Times

(via absurdlakefront/bnf; tylercoates; southpol; ericmortensen; newsandbooze)

The problem that I have with this is that he’s trying to turn it into some type of concealed/open carry argument, when that’s not even on the table. People just want to be able to have a handgun to protect their home in the city of Chicago. There is no public carrying legislation being talked about.

That aside, this argument is coming from a man who’s been protected by a security detail armed with handguns nearly his entire life.