I came across your site during my musings browsing the web and was quite amused. I find you have some rather eclectic views regarding contemporary issues, which are nonetheless quite insightful and prompt thought. However I did read one article titled "The British Approach to Guns and Liberty" that was so moving I am compelled to rebut your comparison between American and British contemporary views on gun laws.

The meaning at stake i feel is much less the literal interpretation of "the right to bear arms", which manifests itself in the ownership of firearms, so much as it the role of government in American life and the responsibility of the citizen. The right to bear arms is less about owning pump action shotguns and Uzis than it is a testament to individual self-reliance not tied to that of a nanny state; a state Britain operates. Our founding fathers wrote our constitution with the intent that individuals were to be self-reliant citizens which are were able to defend themselves, with firearms if necessary. The intent has stayed the same, but with the advent of automatic weapons the implementation becomes a slippery slope. After all, who can honestly say that individuals should be able to purchase military grade SAW machine guns capable of dispensing over a thousand rounds of ammunition a minute? In this regard there is room for regulation and standards as to which firearms can and can't be sold. However, just because firearms can kill individuals does not mean they should be outlawed outright.

Guns in America are used by in large for either sporting purposes or self-defense home weapons. Canada as an example, has a higher per capita ownersip rate of firearms than America yet there are less gun deaths per capita. There is hardly a strong correlation between guns available and deaths. On the other end of the spectrum are those who use guns for criminal purposes. The fundamental question that must be asked in this scenario is: Will the outlaw of guns prohibit criminals from procuring them? The answer is a resounding no. Economic supply and demand states that as long as there is a demand for an item there will be a supply. Even if the supplier must circumvent government regulations to bring his product to the consumer, it can be done, albeit it a higher cost, but done nonetheless. We see the same situation with drug suppliers who bypass international borders to bring illicit drugs into America. Marijuana, Cocaine, and regulated pharmaceutical drugs are all readily available regardless of stringent governmental regulations. What is to say that the regulation of firearms would play out any differently, other than to possibly embolden criminals.

If any action is to be taken to cut down on the number of gun deaths a year, better it deregulation of illicit drugs (which we agree on) which indirectly is responsible for thousands of shootings a year. Since gangs cannot enforce contracts in a legally regulated setting, they are forced to use means of force to settle outstanding contracts and rivalries between other gangs. As a result, many innocent civilians are killed in the crossfire, not to mention the gang members who are waging war on one another. Disarming innocent civilians at this point in time would just allow gangs to become more drastic in their methods and leave those who wish to protect themselves helpless. As the saying goes, "better to have and not need than to need and not have."

Daniel Barulich

Clearly the living, because gun laws have become much more strict than the time of the founding fathers.

Of course the living decide, they do hold the elected offices and shape current policy. The point I was trying to get across in the first email was that although the right to bear arms is from an old document, its usefulness and relevance has not diminished. There are some rights that are universal such as "freedom of speech". The right to self-defense and owning a firearm is considered, in America, to be a universal citizen's right. European mentality is much different understandably. Put yourself in a scenario in which you live in middle of nowhere Montana. You live 40 minutes from the nearest police station, a scenario which is very common is small isolated rural areas. A robber breaks into your home at night armed with a pistol he purchased on the black market due to his criminal record, which would normally render him ineligible for firearm ownership. Do you deny that this person would not benefit from having a firearm available? Should they not be allowed to defend themselves in this scenario? I certainly believe they should. Even if it means them having to blow the robber away, who willfully and forcefully entered their property armed and dangerous, with a pump-action shotgun.

Take for example Alabama, a state in America which has some of the most lenient firearms regulations. Why doesn't Alabama have rampant firearm deaths resulting from their loose policies? I'll tell you why. Its because the majority of firearm owners in Alabama are hunters who are knowledgeable regarding rifles, and treat them as a tool for their hobby. You see far more gun deaths occurring in urban areas with high crime rates due to gangs in which firearm ownership is often at its lowest.

Overall the right to bear arms may not be a great policy for every nation. Although it certainly works for America more often than not.

The constitution block is still around because Americans agree with its principles. The American constitution is not simply an old piece of paper which allows the deceased to govern the living, it is an article which contains universal principles about the role of the federal government and the separation of powers. In order to have a functioning government, rules need to be laid down and a contract with the people established. Thus the role of the constitution. It outlines the most basic rights afforded to the American people.

Your argument of a static document is far from valid. Since the original Bill of Rights (first 10 amendments) were added to the constitution in 1791, and additional seventeen have been added. Amendments which include women's suffrage, the abolition of slavery, and the right to vote regardless of race. The most basic principles are unchanging, but every amendment is up for revision with support of the states, which are representative of the people. Furthermore, the states are left up to decide laws not mentioned in the constitution or by the federal government. In order to have a functioning government you must have universal laws regarding citizens rights, thus a form of consistency. The constitution is static only in its regard for basic human rights and the separation of powers.

I live in the city of Los Angeles and there is reason to be afraid. The crime rate is high and criminals can break into your house, sometimes armed. We own a shotgun in our home which has never been used in self-defense purposes. It is kept unloaded at all times. But ill be damned if there comes a day in which an armed robber comes into my home and I am not prepared to meet him with lethal force (if necessary) to protect myself and my loved ones.

Just because nobody walks around in Europe with handguns does not mean its the best prescription for America. This perception that all Americans are gun hungry maniacs hellbent on possessing as many firearms as possible is absolutely preposterous, likely as a result of ill-informed left wing European media bias. Most handguns and rifles are used for sporting and recreational purposes, albeit by a fraction of our population (about 25%), and declining. The vast majority of murders committed by firearms are as a result of gang violence regarding drug trade and territorial issues. Gang members usually acquire firearms on the black market circumventing governmental regulation. You have yet to address how outlawing civilian gun possession will stop hardened criminals from acquiring them.

You seem to be in the Michael Moore state of idealism: one sided arguments which disregard underlying issues such as drug trade, gangs, racial violence, and poverty which are issues at the heart of the vast majority of firearm deaths. Banning civilian firearms doesn't solve those underlying issues, it also doesn't prevent criminals from acquiring firearms, but it does prevent honest citizens from protecting themselves.