I recall a paper during my days as an undergraduate. It was supposed to have examined how Americans viewed guns. Instead, its Japanese writer had expressed his incredulity at a government that "allowed" its citizens to be armed. He was entitled to his opinion, but he had missed the point of the assignment, which was to examine why guns are valued in America.

This was well before such emotional events as Columbine had polarized the nation, but the question remains: Why guns? What is it about them that makes men and women hold fast and tight to ownership rights? Is it really an obsession with the power over life and death that having a gun gives to some people? Are guns really the means by which cowards may feel like "real men"? Not being omniscient, I can speak only for myself.

I can start by addressing the obvious: that this nation won its freedom through the guns held by the hands of private citizens. That in the past — well before firearms existed — inhabitants of lands where the ownership of weaponry was limited to a certain class were at the mercy of that class. That the second of our inalienable rights explicitly reads: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Not " of the Colonial army." Not "of government agents and officers." Not "of those who jump through all the right hoops." Of the people. It says that a well-regulated militia is necessary, but it does not say that only this militia’s rights "shall not be infringed." It says the right of the people shall not be infringed.

That gun ownership is a constitutional right has been forgotten. Half the world seems convinced that American citizens are helpless pawns in the grip of the NRA, and the leader of our nation encourages this. Wayne LaPierre’s personal attacks aside, perhaps Bill Clinton needs to remember that the NRA is comprised of individuals. Who vote. I am not a member of the NRA, and I do not have a high opinion of lobbyists. Any lobbyist. But if every other special interest group is entitled to lobby Congress, why not the NRA?

I am aware that some murders are heat-of-the-moment and may not have occurred had the perpetrator not had access to a gun. I accept that this is supremely tragic. What I do not accept is that I should be punished for the bad judgment and wickedness of others. I am aware that psychopaths roam among us, and that a gun in the hands of such an individual can have catastrophic results. I am also aware that no government has successfully circumvented psychopaths by legislating the rights of sane people out of existence. I know that little hands take hold of big guns and do enormous damage. I accept unequivocally that this is a terrible thing that should never happen, and that reasonable measures should be enacted to prevent it. I’m just not sure that taking guns out of everyone’s hands is the best way.

I am also aware that even the most extreme measures of gun-control cannot stop crime. I lived in the United Kingdom when a total ban on guns was enacted. This law did not prevent further gun-crime. When I returned the following summer, the friend with whom I was staying cautioned me never to answer the bell, because "two people were shot in this neighborhood when they did that last week. When it comes to guns, I can again only speak for myself, but for me, it isn’t the "thrill" of owning a deadly weapon. I pray that I never have to find out whether I actually have the bottle to shoot someone. For me, it’s what the gun symbolizes: my right to defend myself and my property as I see fit; and the freedom to choose, without being tagged, labeled and harassed by my own government.

By simply possessing a firearm, I have not broken any law, and I resent being judged by what the government or others fear I might do "someday." The legal system doesn’t operate like this on any other concern. We do not place the name of every pubescent male on a list of "possible sex offenders" just because he is male and likes girls, and we do not treat every child who walks into a candy store like a thief by virtue of the fact that he or she probably likes candy. As hard as it might be to accept, to be prosecuted for a crime, a person must actually first commit one!