"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.
