Sorry for positing this a few days late… Was a busy weekend shooting matches and running around.
The Tribune put coverage of the upcoming Supreme Court 2nd Amendment suit, McDonald vs City of Chicago, on the front page over the weekend. The article covers, with some bias that I'll address shortly, the back story of the case. I urge you to go read it now:
here
Now, about the bias:
Generally, the media is so quick to frame any 2nd Amendment debate as a divisive, Democrat vs Republican, Urban vs Rural, Educated vs Country Bumpkin, Women vs Men issue all the while forgetting, conveniently I might add, that it is a right that should apply to ALL of us, regardless of creed, color, socio-economic class or ethic background. If the Thursday night McHenry County town hall meeting showed us anything, it was that the debate is NOT a strictly a rural issue: Here we are, a collar county, suburban to Chicago, voicing our view that our rights shouldn't be abridged and that Concealed Carry deserves to get a fair shake when it comes up for debate in Illinois. Keep that in mind as you read passages like the following, which focus on the differences and not the similarities citizens everywhere have:
Amid the clamor of the gun-rights debate, McDonald presents a strongly sympathetic figure: an elderly man who wants a gun to protect himself from the hoodlums preying upon his neighborhood. But the story of McDonald and his lawsuit is more complicated than its broad outlines might suggest. McDonald and three co-plaintiffs were carefully recruited by gun-rights groups attempting to shift the public perception of the Second Amendment as a white, rural Republican issue. McDonald, a Democrat and longtime hunter, jokes that he was chosen as lead plaintiff because he is African-American.
