I was expecting that response from America. The Editorial on gun control was deja vu for anyone who has read the papers and pamphlets of the 1770s and understands why the Queen is not today America's constitutional head of state.

Change the subject from gun control to taxation without representation by American colonists in the London parliament, plus the total debasement of colonial Americans' rights to consider themselves as full citizens of the Old Country, and the Editorial would have been in accordance with the spirit of those times. The American response likewise just as truculent.

And before we're very much older. Let us not forget that, if convicted, it will be Neil Entwistle, not an American but an Englishman and a British citizen, who will have calculatedly offended against both common law and specific gun control legislation in the state of Massachusetts.

The Editorial mimicked the remote and ill-informed attitude struck by those having power in England on the edge of the American Revolution. They just took the lofty view of knowing best because they were the metropolitan sophisticates and the Americans the bumpkins in butter-nut dyed home-spun.

Not totally correct as the main American port cities were just as cosmopolitan and literate as anywhere but it was the common image. It was the mind-set. Yankee-doodle rides a pony. He decorates his hat with a feather and thinks its "macarone" ie. fashionable. Snigger! Snigger! The American military bands played this tune when the British Army surrendered at Yorktown.

There was a case for American financial contribution to the war effort against France and for frontier security but, like the Editorial, the word was imperious, from on high, insensitive, lacking in local knowledge and with an assumption of righteousness. Deja vu!

Readers may remember Tony Martin from the Fen country who shot two itinerant travellers or tinkers in his farmstead, killing one. The Editor will know how impotent are the Police against these lawless, light fingered itinerants.

Only this last week here in Chelmsford, Essex, someone I know, he having made some curtains (drapes) for a travelling family who had moved from a caravan (trailer) into a house, went to collect the overdue £3,000 (US $6,000) they owe. Whilst his female business partner was imprisoned in the bathroom, he was badly beaten.

He will not involve the Police because they cannot protect him from retaliation. The Police also said that they do not as a policy enter into travellers' camps. This week there was a fight at a local travellers' camp but only armed Police attended.

In 1982 I caught a burglar in my house. I had a shotgun but no legal power to shoot. Fortunately, the Police were in the next street. In 1993, I was held up by a youth using a .22 rifle when closing store premises. I took a chance. Ignored the gun and called the Police who arrived rapidly fully armed.

The Americans in their vast country. They do have a good case! Best leave them be!

Barrie Stevens. Chelmsford, Essex County, England.


Dear Mr. George Robinson,

I must say that your article is quite an interesting piece of work but I have a number of issues with it.

I am an American Citizen. But I'm not your average American Citizen. I'm a Cuban American, first generation born in the USA. My family fled a communist dictatorship in which half of my family was targeted and killed by the revolutionary state. The first thing the state did in Cuba was abolish the laws that allowed its citizenry to arm themselves. After that it went down hill.

Also I'm a bit different then what you might think is average. I'm a police officer for a large sized police department. We have about 150 officers, SWAT Team, Detectives, etc, and we service a city of 75,000 citizens in South Florida. And I along with many of my fellow officers am strong supporters of the 2nd Amendment.

We believe that a legally armed society will further prevent crime and it is in fact true. In 1987 the State of Florida passed its Conceal Weapon Permit. The permit allows citizens and residences of Florida to carry a firearm on or about their person for self defense.

When the law was passed the Florida crime rate dropped like a rock. Each citizen that wants a conceal weapon permit must go through a state and federal criminal background check. They then must take a state certified firearm safety course and along with their application turn in finger prints and a passport size photo.

Federal Law prevents a person with said issues from owning a firearm.

- Anyone who has been convicted in any court of, a felony punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year, excluding those crimes punishable by imprisonment related to the regulation of business practices.

* Anyone who is a fugitive from justice.
* Anyone who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance.
* Anyone who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to a mental institution.
* Any alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States or an alien admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa. The exception is if the nonimmigrant is in possession of a valid hunting license issued by a US state.
* Anyone who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions.
* Anyone who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his or her citizenship.
* Anyone that is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner.
* Anyone who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.
* A person who is under indictment or information for a crime (misdemeanor or felony) punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year cannot lawfully receive a firearm. Such person may continue to lawfully possess firearms obtained prior to the indictment or information, and if cleared or acquitted can receive firearms without restriction.

As a police officer I 100% support for law abiding citizens owning firearms. Whether they are pistols, revolvers, shotguns, rifles, or what you in your industry call 'semi-automatic assault rifles'.

As for automatic weapons (machine guns); the sale and possession of Automatic Weapons has been heavily regulated since 1934 when the National Firearms Act was passed.

All Automatic Weapons in legal possession have been registered and controlled by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, & Explosives. Since 1986 no automatic weapon made after that year can be sold to civilians.

Every single Automatic weapon owned in civilian hands was made before 1986 and a $200 Tax Stamp must be paid for it. Top get said tax stamp, the person must have a clean background, go through a long and rigorous background check by the BATFE which takes a number of months, and must keep the paper work with said firearm.

The owner of such firearm cannot sell it to anyone unless they themselves file for the same tax stamp and go through the same procedure with BATFE. And for every automatic weapon a person owns they must do the procedure again. It's not a one time thing. On top of all that, no legally owned automatic weapon has been used in the commission of a crime since 1934.

In the United States of America, over 2,000,000 firearms are used annually for self defense. The majority of those uses involve the firearm simply being flashed at the criminal. Criminals are predators in nature and they will prey on those that have no means of self defense.

Does the lion attack the strong, fast, and healthy Zebra? No, it goes after the old, sick, and slow one. Do you think criminals will attack someone that might be armed or after someone that they know is not armed?

Washington DC, my nation's capital, has the most restrictive firearm laws in the nation. Strangely it is also the city in the United States of America with the highest crime and murder rates. While cities in the USA that have very liberal and unrestrictive firearm laws have lower crime and murder rates.

Your own nation sir, the United Kingdom has had a crime rate sky rocket when your firearm rights were outlawed. Your own National Shooting Teams must train outside your shores or have laws amended so they can practice and compete. Your Bobbies, a very prideful and well respected police force, did not carry firearms for a very long time. Yet now, when your firearm rights were taken away; they started being armed to counter the threat.

Your nation is falling down the slippery slope of Orwellian Dictatorship. You speak of how simple it is for your laws to be changed and removed. I am glad and proud as a police officer that our laws cannot be changed as easily. You have a police state forming around you as you write your articles. Your rights are becoming less and less as we stand here.

My Constitution is the oldest one in the world. My Constitution has survived a civil war and a number of national crises. Yet it has stood tall and has survived. Many nations across the world has tried to and wanted to copy my Constitution.

My Constitution grants me with the right to free speech, the right to religion, the right to keep and bear arms, the right to be secure in my home and on my person, the right to a fair and public trail, the right not to have soldiers quartered in my home, the right to not self incriminate myself in trail, and lastly the right to vote for my government.

I don't know much of the British Government and its systems. But I know this. My nation fought against it for its own freedom. My nation's founding fathers fought against the crown for a reason. And that reason was freedom from oppression.

The Constitution of the United States of America does one simple thing. It does not grant me or my fellow Citizens rights. It simply lists the inalienable rights that we are all born with. Rights that the State cannot take away.

Gun Control and Gun Restriction has only lead to two things in the history of mankind. Higher Crime Rates and Mass Genocides. Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, Communist China, Pol Pots Cambodia, and other dictatorships have started their mass killings in simple ways. They all have restricted the owner of firearms from its citizenry.

During World War II, your nation was facing a threat of invasion of Nazi Germany. It created the Home Guard, a group of armed and semi-trained civilians to guard strategic locations and if need be. Fight Germany Paratroopers and Infantry. Most of their arms were provided by American Citizens. Millions of Americans donated their own personal and privately owned firearms to the cause for freedom; a freedom that you have today because of the sacrifices of pervious generations. Both British and American.

In the end sir, the 2nd Amendment isn't about guns. It's about rights. The same rights that grant me the right to freedom of speech and the right to be secure in my home or on my person. My Constitution is as solid as a rock. So my rights cannot be stripped. Remember the difference between a Citizen and a Subject is one can own firearms and can defend one's self against criminals, whether they are street thugs or members of government; and the other one can't.

Good Day sir.

Luis Antonio
Police Officer, Uniform Patrol Division HPD


We understand that facts must never be allowed to impede an agenda.
Anti-gunners can't change their minds and won't change the subject so we Americans are always on guard.

My ancestor left Tayside in the 1720s and since then we've not required any advice from the English on anything.

What has happened to the British spirit? People defending themselves often face worse punishment than their attackers. A young man was told he couldn't display an English flag lest it offend some outsiders -- outsiders who are dedicated to usurping and ultimately destroying your country.

I admire much about Britain. I think Churchill was one of the greatest men who ever graced our world. How could you have sunk to this level?

John McNabb
Ooltewah, Tennessee

Dear Mr. Robinson,

Clearly you do not understand our society. You bring up one single criminal incident as proof that we should change our ways. It is irrelevant.

There are many such crimes or crimes of equally hideous nature, but they are small as a percentage of our population. We are a vast society covering a continent with more open space between population centers than most Europeans are capable of comprehending.

In most of this nation, a call to the police will take a significant amount of time to answer. It is not possible to hire enough police to cover it all, all the time. Until the police arrive, you are on your own.

There are currently enough firearms in common circulation in this country to arm all 300 million of us. Even if they were all outlawed tomorrow, not even 10per cent would likely be turned in. Now, most of those guns belong to honest law abiding people who are never going to commit a crime.

Some also belong to criminals who will use them to commit crimes. If the former disarms, then for that time it takes the police to arrive, they are at the mercy of the latter, much like you in England with your various Yobs.

The difference is that you are a much smaller place so your police can arrive faster. Hopefully before the knifing or beating of an innocent Brit takes place.

We do know that the bobbies always arrive before injury occurs right? Our society in most cases and life threatening circumstances allows a citizen to defend themselves to protect the life and safety or that of an innocent third party. To do so, implies the ability to have the means to do so.

Notice sir, that I said citizen and not subject. Our laws are all subject to our constitution, but our people are not the subject of any monarch. That is our people own the government, the government does not have the power to permit or prohibit anything. All power collectively exercised through our government is a grant from the people.

Our constitution you will note, does not say what the people can do, more what the government can and cannot do. Notice again, that the second amendment is not a grant to the people, but a prohibition against certain government actions.

Your monarch rules for life, all British laws are made and enforced in the name of the monarch. Our laws are made and enforced in the name of the people. We, the people like it that way. So much so, that we choose to fire our head of state every four years and make them reapply for the job.

If we liked them, they get another 4 years, if we didn't, we hire a new one. We do this so no one person gets too comfortable in the job and forgets who it is they work for. Reading today's headlines concerning Mr. Mugabe should prove what happens when someone gets too comfortable in such a position.

Our constitution is not outdated, nor is the right of the individual to have the means of self defense. A gun could just as easily mean salvation, should be armed against an attacker. This happens roughly 3 million times per year in this country, most without firing a shot. Simply displaying the gun and determination not to be a victim is often enough to send the blighter running.

No sir, we will not turn them all in and it is naive to think we would. We value life far too much to allow such a thing to happen. We value freedom far too much to permit the police who are far too few, and predatory criminals to have the monopoly on the use of force.

No sir, our founders got it right when they vested the power and tools to wield it in the people. These are timeless concepts and there is nothing archaic in them. If it costs some lives along the way, well, that is the unfortunate price we choose to pay for our freedom. Look how many we choose to lose just to be able to travel by automobile.

I have served as a Police Officer for my whole adult life. I've held every rank from PO to Chief. I've served in every division from patrol to investigations and training and administration. I've seen comedy and tragedy and I've actually been shot at.

Still, I would not take this right away from honest people as it is basic and fundamental. The right to self preservation is universal, thus the means to it is also universal. As noted, we already prohibit criminals from being armed. They lost certain rights when they chose a life of crime. Criminals however don't much care about laws by definition. They are after all criminals.

Mr. Robinson, we will keep our guns, we will not change our second amendment, and we will not conform to your rules. I should think that point was made clear long ago when a Cheeky British fellow named Gage tried to disarm us not too far from where this terrible crime took place.

We wouldn't then, we won't now and neither will our children and grandchildren. Call us barbarians, call us uncouth, call us what you will, but the last time you called us, we came to you and we brought guns, lots of them. It seems you had an insufficient supply for the problem at hand thus needed the use of ours and the men who knew how to use them.

Sincerely,
M.D.Pearlman, Chief of Police-ret.


George,

We do not swagger around with six-guns at the ready, as many seem to think. We do however, as men, take the responsibility of providing for the safety of those we care about, and when the police show up, that is fine.

They can take it from there. In the meanwhile we prefer not to cower in the bedroom, soiling our drawers and hoping a constable can save us.

The best you guys seem to be able to hope for is one of your multitudes of nanny-cameras catching the bad guys in the act, and exonerating the victim from charges he hurt a criminals feelings.

You know, there once was a time we looked up to you guys...

regards,
Ben Ryan

US of A


Dear Sir,

I wanted to take a moment to enter some input into the question of the United States 2nd Amendment.

I am a former servicemember and veteran. I served this country because I believe in what it stands for. I swore to uphold the Constitution and I would do so again if necessary. To answer your question about not understanding the reason or right to bear arms is simply, 'It is an American thing, you wouldn't understand.' You are probably thinking, what a stupid response, but I am not at all being sarcastic.

Our forefathers fought against what they considered a tyrannical government. In order for them to consider writing the bill of rights, they needed to make it clear what their intentions were regarding violation of civil rights in the Declaration of Independence. Individual rights. From free speech, press and religion, unlawful search and siezure, right to speedy trial, due process, etc. The main reason for the 2nd Amendment is not for the sportsman hunter or even the protection from criminals. The 2nd Amendment was written to protect the people from a tyrannical government. I will give you a few great quotes which might help.

"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."
-Thomas Jefferson

"The right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, and one more safeguard against a tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible." -Hubert Humphrey-

"The Second Amendment isn't about protecting ourselves against criminals. It's about all of us protecting ourselves from all of you." ---Dr. Suzanne Gratia Hupp to Congressman Charles Schumer (D-NY), 1994

It is hard to explain to someone who has not seen it from an Americans view without actually being American. I will not try to convince another who simply does not believe or understand what it means to me. My civil rights mean everything to me just like any other American. It is not an old outdated Amendment. I will not try defending it through statistics on gun rights and such. No need. It is a necessary piece to insure our rights as American citizens. God Bless and God Bless America.

Scott H.
New Mexico


Dear sir, I read your article and appreciate your call for feedback.

First, I would like to correct your statement that our US Constitution gives anyone, including "a yahoo Detroit drug dealer the God given right to wield a weapon".

This statement was patently false. It is a felony for anyone with a criminal history to possess a weapon, and a felony for anyone even possessing drugs to own a firearm. There are MANY restrictions on who may own a firearm.


Secondly, I wanted to comment on the character of the hundreds of gun owners I have met. The gun owning community here in the United States is comprised of some of the most honorable, responsible people I have ever known.

I refer only to lawful gun owners, not the criminal element who are already violating the law if they possess one. While there are a few irresponsible gun owners exercising their right, they are VASTLY smaller in number than the number of irresponsible car owners – and no one seems to be interested in abolishing the privilege of automobile ownership in America. And statistically, car accidents in America cause a lot more death than guns do.


I was a part of the anti-gun crowd a few short years ago, and have changed positions after coming to know MANY such responsible gun owners, and after having learned more about our world history AND US history.

The criminal element here in the US are already prohibited from owning guns and only do so illegally – just as they do in the UK even after the gun ban. Destroying our Bill Of Rights will not change a criminal's illegal possession of a firearm, any more than our "war on drugs" has taken drugs out of users' hands.

It simply creates a black market for the item – which is evidenced in the UK's soaring post-ban violent crime rates, AND the soaring crime rates in all US cities that have banned or heavily restricted guns (while states & cities with free gun ownership have lowered crime).


For the record: despite being a former anti-gunner, I now own an extensive collection of not only military style semi-automatic rifles, but several pistols as well. My firearms are kept & used responsibly & safely. I have carried a pistol daily for 4 years without incident. And as the joke goes "my guns have killed less people than Senator Ted Kennedy's car"!


I hope this brings you another perspective on US gun ownership.



Sincerely,

Daniel Watkins

USA



Why blame a .22 for the execution of Rachel & Lilly Entwistle? Look closer to home. Also examine the pressures on the New Man today (especially in the US) to be successful, good dad, great husband, keep up appearances, etc. Also this kind of crime has happened in the UK. Sure, the US gun laws need reviewing, but to focus on the gun as the perpetrator of this heinous cold blooded crime is ridiculous! Plse let's have some more inward looking thoughts about the Entwistle case and stop pointing the finger outside of ourselves.

To Editor,

I find it rather interesting that a Brit had so easily forgotten about how at the beginning of World War II, the British Government and its subjects had begged American citizens for donations of privately owned firearms so that British subjects can arm themselves to prepare against German invasions because apparently British subjects were not well armed enough to repel invasion by an enemy force. It's a good thing that the RAF did their job over the sky of Britain, and that the civilians never had to fight their own battles against the Jerries. BUT if they had to do it, at least they were armed with weapons provided by American citizens out of the goodness of their hearts.

Next time fight your own damn battles with your own weapons. Don't ask us colonists for nuthin'.

HT Dang


The Second Amendment can be removed by another amendment to the US Constitution. It will never be removed, however, because the American people will never permit that to happen.

Implying that the Second Amendment is somehow obsolete is like Josef Goebbels declaring the free speech is a relic of the past. Then again, Herr Goebbels would be delighted with England's laws against 'hate speech' (as defined by the government, of course).

On a related note: through efforts by the NRA, American citizens gave thousands of privately owned firearms to Great Britain to be distributed to the British public in 1940 in anticipation of a German invasion.

The British government then confiscated those firearms after the war was over. It seems that people who can be trusted by the government during a time of crisis, somehow cannot be trusted by the government when the crisis is over. sad, sad, sad.

So, you don't 'get' the Second Amendment? It's a 'freedom thing' and only free people 'get it'. Don't take my word for it -- ask the people in Zimbabwe if they'd like to own arms, or if Robert "Kill My Opponents"
Mugabe and his thugs should enjoy a monopoly of power.

Sincerely,

Steven W. Langstroth

Tucson, AZ
USA


I live in the United States. I teach English literature and composition at a college. I've also written for newspapers in the past and taught college journalism courses.

I am also a certified handgun instructor, which you may find shocking.

In fact, today I helped a man renew his state-issued concealed carry license, which allows him to walk around in public with a loaded handgun.

I helped this man complete the required training for the renewal of his license...a short course of fire, review of safety procedures, and the required governmental paperwork.

I must say that I am startled by your lack of knowledge of American gun laws. I would think that someone writing a column in such a widely-read newspaper would have researched his topic a bit more. Only a lack of knowledge could account for you writing the following:

"The untouchable written clause in the American way that gives anyone - from a yeehaa Texan President to a yahoo Detroit drug dealer - the God-given right to wield a weapon capable of causing death."

The Second Amendment does not guarantee the right of a drug dealer to own a gun.

It is completely illegal for a drug dealer to own a gun or even ammunition for guns.

Anyone found simultaneously possessing both a gun and illegal drugs can receive a sentence of up to 10 years in prison under current US law. The person doesn't have to fire the gun, brandish the gun, or even have the gun loaded. Merely possessing a gun simultaneously with illegal drugs is itself a crime.

There are currently over 20,000 gun laws on the books in the United States, with large lists of restrictions and prohibitions on who can and cannot legally own guns.

No convicted felons may own guns or ammunition. There are even misdemeanor crimes which result in loss of gun rights. There are age restrictions, citizenship restrictions, all sorts of restrictions and laws governing who can and cannot own guns.

Of course, criminals have this funny habit of not obeying laws. I believe that's why they are called criminals.

But after reading your column, I must say that I doubt that getting facts straight on American gun laws and gun ownership is really your goal.

If it is your goal, I'd be happy to let you know about American gun laws. But based on the tone of your column, I doubt that really is your goal.

Another set of questions you ask in the column are as follows:

"Why can't the second amendment be scrapped? All guns could be taken into a police station and destroyed. Following this period of amnesty, anyone caught with a firearm, without an appropriate licence, should be arrested.

I think you could start to answer these questions by looking at American history.

Perhaps you've heard of British General Thomas Gage?

He had a very similar outlook on uppity colonial peasants having guns and ammunition for guns. You may wish to find out what happened to British General Thomas Gage and his men when he attempted to confiscate guns and ammunition and arrest and subdue uppity peasant colonials shortly after issuing these orders.

http://socsci.gulfcoast.edu/dreese/gage.htm


Of course, as you say, British law, with its unwritten constitution, is much better. Any sweeping changes can be made at a mere whim.

And of course, since England banned handgun ownership, and tightly restricted the ownership of shotguns and rifles, your country has become a violence-free paradise of love and compassion and brotherhood.


If you truly are perplexed on why millions of Americans, including a college English instructor, own guns, I'd be willing to answer some of your questions.

However, if you aren't really perplexed, and merely want to write columns making fun of "yeehaa" Americans, then I'm not willing to answer any of your questions.

Roy Hill

The Worksop Guardian's article about Entwistle criticising American gun ownership was indeed holier than thou. Not only did it show an ignorance of American freedoms linked to the Constitution but it failed to record that Britain is very far from gun-clean.

The authorities here estimate some four million unlawfully owned guns are in circulation, their whereabouts unrecorded. Britain has a gun crime problem with 500 deaths a year. Not as big as America's but then Britain is so tiny.

And Worksop is near Nottingham which has had the most appalling record for shootings, robbery, police no-go areas and breakdown of law and order in some suburbs. The man responsible for most organised crime was recently jailed.

All British police forces have Armed Response Units, SWAT teams and other specialists. Only two or three weeks ago a promising young Attorney was shot dead in London when firing a shotgun at police and neighbours.

Until very recently it was possible to legally own handguns for sporting purposes in Britain subject to investigation and control. Some 10-12 years ago we were all disarmed when the Government compulsorily purchased our guns at valuation and including dealers' stock following on from The Dunblane Massacre.

There was no crime amongst legal gun owners. There was a breakdown of policing. A deranged lawful gun owner called Thomas Hamilton entered a school killing 15 children and a teacher at Dunblane, Scotland, in March 1996.

Today, the British Olympic shooting team must keep its weapons overseas and cannot even train in Britain.

The British could in fact openly buy hand-guns in hardware stores and department stores until 1920 when fear of Bolshevik revolution in Europe caused the Government to panic and disarm everyone by amnesty. Gun ownership was not unlawful. Using a gun to commit crime was! In the Sherlock Holmes stories we see that man firing his revolver at the interior wall of his London apartment having injected cocaine!

It is recorded that British police officers, being unarmed and facing a threat, would stop likely looking gentleman in the street and ask to borrow the revolvers which they knew many of them regularly carried - until 1920!

I lawfully acquired my first hand-gun in 1966 aged seventeen courtesy of Essex County Police Permit No 16399 (That's sixteen thousand plus please note!) here in England and soon owned a .22 Browning Automatic. a .9 mm parabellum Browning Hi-Power automatic, .455 Webley revolver, .22 (LR) revolver and a .22 Colt Magnum short-barrelled revolver but similar to the one pictured by the Boston-Herald in the Entwistle trial. My Permit also authorised me to own a NATO pattern 7.62 mm automatic rifle. Britain's gun myth thus explodes!

The Worksop Guardian relates the American Constitution's provisions on the right to bear arms back to the days of believing that the Earth was flat and when Americans needed guns because the citizens were in effect the nation's army and police.

Partly correct but it ignores jealously guarded States' rights and diversity without which the Union would be unsuccessful if non-existent. Also, Americans across many states do still self-police and have the right of self-defence, including the use of guns, against intruders in their own homes. Indeed, many are the better for being able to self-defend due to isolation, vast distances and police response times. The British lost this automatic right of defence by law in 1967 and now the burden is upon the defender to justify any force/weapons used or face murder/manslaughter charges. Britain does not have Second-Degree Murder.

Finally, if Americans had not had the right to own personal fire-arms then there would not have been a United States and no Declaration of Independence. Such is now deeply embedded in the psyche. Ownership is one thing. Adequate control is another. UNQUOTE

Barrie Stevens Chelmsford. Essex County. England.

Dear Sirs:

George Robinson wrote about America's 2nd Amendment: "These laws were adopted in 1789, a time when a police force per se did not exist. The reason people kept arms was because the people WERE the police. They were asked to keep watch on the community and confront any suspicious persons."

Well, to use a George-like hyperbole, suppose in 1789 a blacksmith had hammered out a policeman badge and pinned it onto a sack of flour -- declaring that this sack of flour was now our police, whom we would have to rely on for protection.

How would such an act eliminate the need for the right to keep and bear arms? OK, so our police are not as useless as a sack of flour, but they have failed to keep our homes and streets free of burglars, muggers and rapists -- so the existence of police has certainly not eliminated our need to carry deadly weapons.

I took training and subjected myself to a thorough background check (including fingerprints sent to the FBI) to receive my permit to legally carry a concealed pistol (loaded with hollow-points, caliber 9mm NATO).

I did this in fulfillment of my moral duty to bear arms to defend my country's liberty from those who would deny us our Constitutional Rights (e.g., "the Right to Freedom from Unwarranted Searches and Seizures" -- which burglars and muggers routinely violate).

I do it to ensure that our ghetto's ultra-high rate of violent crime does not leak out into my neighborhood. Rather than being shot to pieces in a gang-war over drug-selling territory, our average 16 year-old criminal would certainly prefer to rob an unarmed, middle-aged suburban accountant or computer programmer. I aim to deny him that opportunity.

I do this to help prevent America from developing an English-style "Robbery Culture" -- where bling and clothes purchased with robbery loot are routinely worn as though they were some kind of fashion item.

Sincerely,

Frank Silbermann
Memphis, Tennessee


The most honest line in Mr. Robinson's diatribe was the statement "I don't get it."

He certainly doesn't "get it" and apparently didn't bother to do any honest research that would have helped him "get it."


Too bad. We prove every day that guns in the "right" hands save lives –and far more often than when used illegally in the "wrong" hands.


Dave McNaughton