Gun ban a disservice to law-abiding folks

After reading Burt Constable's column of Thursday, March 4, regarding the Supreme Court's review of Chicago's hand gun ban, I found myself confused. I really, really, don't understand the logic and find his arguments implausible.

His "common sense" seems the logic of one who lives in Utopia where everyone is always safe. That is not the world the majority of Americans live in; there are no guaranteed safe havens in our world.

The right to bear arms and the right of self-defense are two inseparable concepts that preserve life and dignity.

My reality, is that of a 61-year-old, slightly-built man who has lost the vigor of youth and is no longer able to defend himself or his family with out a tool. The only "common sense" defensive tool suitable is a firearm, and for efficiency a handgun is the tool of choice. If you apply onerous taxes and regulations to my right to own a firearm, you are infringing on that right; and if, like the city of Chicago, you ban my handgun, you have denied my right of self-defense.

Self-defense as a right, predates the Bill of Rights by hundreds of years in English common law and some might argue that it is a God-given right or even a duty. Common sense - I mean real duty to defend or protect you, as decided by the courts - that responsibility is ours alone. The state's only duty is to prosecute the offender, small consolation for the victim or his family if they are dead or maimed.

Chicago's hand gun ban only denies the law abiding citizen his right of self-defense, it does not deter criminals at all. The Supreme Court will overturn this ban as it did the Washington, D.C., ban, and the common citizen will benefit by it.

Clyde D. Larsen

Elgin