I assume we've straightened out your confusion on the English Bill of Rights giving Englishmen the right to arms for their defense as an individual right, not some sort of right belonging to elected governments against the sovereign. So...
My problem is that the two sides here are adopting cartoonish positions without any regard to the facts. The effect of liberal gun laws in Vermont has been entirely benevolent, but the anti-gun moral police find that inconvenient and have to either deny or ignore it. The effect of the handgun ban in the UK has been entirely benevolent, but the pro-gun moral police find that inconvenient and have to either deny or ignore it.
Wherever was it established that England's gun bans have been benevolent, much less "entirely benevolent"? Is the violent crime rate in England better now than back in the day 100 years ago, when the Hale Street Shootout took place and police could borrow handguns and long guns from passersby and neighboring houses, for example? When the first gun bans started in England just after WWI, was it about soaring violent crime? No, it was about politics - just like it is today.
Furthermore, we are talking here about unalienable rights, "ancient rights", etc. depending on the Commonwealth or American historical perspective. When did it become "cartoonish" to demand that a right provided by God, your Creator, the fact that you are a human, be respected and deferred to by government? The right to arms is not about firearms per se (as Blackstone so elequently explains) - it is about the right to have the means to defend your life and well being. And the fact that right is the ultimate right available to you to defend all your other rights, not just your life, well being, and possesions. The alternative to the right to arms being that you are supposed to go hand to hand against multiple attackers, your wife should be able to defeat a 220 pound rapist with her kung fu, and granny should be able to do ground and pound against two young thugs breaking into her home. As police cannot be everywhere all the time, the only person who is going to be there to defend you when you are threatened is you, the intended victim. If you CHOOSE to participate in the victim lottery by CHOOSING not to be armed, that is fine - and frankly, your chances are pretty good that it will work out for you.
But the idea that people are FORCED to have no option for defense other than attempting to call 911 as some rapist tells them to take off their clothes, while granny and the handicapped and the physically weak are supposed to brush up on their mixed martial arts skills, shows nothing but contempt for the right of people to have a means of effective self defense available, if they so choose.
And that is what's cartoonish.
Keep Up with TechRepublic