« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Gun Bans Are Totally Effective

By: Ben Domenech (Diary)  |  June 15th, 2010 at 05:08 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

We’ve been talking a lot about the NRA today, and that brings to mind this video from my colleague at the Heartland Institute, Zach Christenson, posted over at Freedom Pub. Watch the whole thing, but particularly the part with Otis MacDonald, the man behind the Chicago gun case, explaining why he needs to own a gun:

MacDonald’s story is moving, and it certainly makes me frustrated. The man just wants to protect himself:

He came to Chicago from Louisiana when he was 17, as part of the Great Migration of blacks. He worked his way up from a janitor to a maintenance engineer, a good job that allowed him and his wife to buy a house on the city’s far South Side in 1972, where they raised their family.

In recent years, McDonald, now a grandfather, has watched the neighborhood deteriorate, the quiet nights he once enjoyed replaced by the sound of gunfire, drunken fights and shattering liquor bottles.

Three times, he says, his house has been broken into — once the front door was wide open and the burglars still out front when his wife and daughter came home from church. A few years ago, he called police to report gunfire, only to be confronted by a man who told him he’d heard about that call and threatened to kill him.

As a commenter over at the Pub writes in response: “Gun bans are 100% effective. You just have to know the actual intent of the gun ban, which is not to lower crime.”

Tags: , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • klondike

    when Rosie O’Donnell was so outspoken in favor of gun control, only to be humiliated (if she is capable of such a reaction) when everyone learned that the body guard for her children carried a firearm?

    Let’s not forget the long-term Democrat state senator from North Carolina, Sen. Soles, who shot two intruders in his home. I read (but admittedly never verified) that he advocated gun control.

    The song “God love Texas” is playing in my brain right now. Texas is not unlike Alaska in that, it’s truly not a very good idea to try a home invasion or carjacking.

  • Diogenes314

    The more stringent the gun control laws, the more violent crime you have. It may not be the effect the instigators hope for, but it’s there nonetheless.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    is having to go back to court to try and force DC to comply with the Sup St decision that recognized an individual right to own and posses a gun to defend one’s home that McDonald is relying on.

    Libs simply won’t comply with the law. For more lawlessness, see Obama from the Oval Office in 45 minutes…

  • Doc Holliday

    gun owners tend to be very responsible. They are going to obey the law. I am a am a law abiding citizen too. That is why I refuse to live in these gun grabbing states. Hell, I don’t even visit them unless I am forced to do so.

  • http://jakespeaks.wordpress.com/ Jake W

    Just another way of controlling the masses and keeping them quiet and harmless. Does nothing but increase crime. I really hope Otis will be alright, and I hope this Chicago handgun case ends up a victory for us.

  • gekster

    If a liberal doesn’t like guns, they don’t want anyone to have them.

  • Doc Holliday

    nice job Ben!

  • drfredc

    Without knowing any details, I’d hazard a guess that some McCain squishes at the NRA are part of this 1st amendment sell-out.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    fears guns and so has never bought one. But I cherish my right to get one if I choose and esp if I need one.

  • callawyn

    Sorry, but this is pretty funny. Not that it isn’t good honest work, but ‘maintenance engineer’ is merely a euphemism for janitor. You don’t work your way up to the same job you already have. This might trick some people into thinking the job is something it is not, but there weren’t any promotions involved.

    Back on topic:

    Good thing he doesn’t live in England or he’d be facing murder charges.

    The left does a far better job of using the courts to advance their agenda than the right does in using the courts to defend our liberties. Worse, they’ve found ways of having the government fund their lawsuits by getting cash settlements from the government for things they shouldn’t have had standing to sue on in the first place. How is it we aren’t suing every city/state/university that infringes on clear Constitutional liberties, seeking not merely an end to their tyrannies but cash settlements as well that could be used to fund more legal battles? Over the past 18 months, congress has made it easier for the plaintiffs bar to sue over a wide variety of issues, mainly because Harry Reid and fellow D’s wanted to please the plaintiffs bar. Not only should the R’s be pressured to reverse these, they should also get pressure to remove legal impediments to suing over actual infringements of our liberties (gun bans, speech codes, etc), why isn’t there pressure on the R’s to remove them when they have the power to do so?

    The ACLU gets big cash settlements when it wins suits that serve to destroy our freedoms, the environmentalists get big money from the govt when they sue on behalf of plants and animals to stop anyone from building anything anywhere, and atheists get money when they sue to advance their war against Christianity, but you have to raise your own money from private sources to finance suits to protect our Constitutionally guaranteed liberties.