While I can understand the correlation to guns in Dan Rodricks' column ("Too many people, dogs and guns to be shocked," Aug. 10), I have to question using the incident as a foundation for a "no guns" law.

First, are the citizen's rights not clearly protected by our Bill of Rights? Ok - so that may be a gray area. But secondly, would Mr. Rodricks provide no access to guns for law enforcement? Once more - it was not the weapon that committed the act; it was a person.

I fully agree that the incident would've been resolved without the death of, albeit, an animal in this case. But ultimately a person uses questionable, or in most cases illegal, judgment when they fire a weapon.

In this case, it an example of excessive force - the excessiveness fueled and condoned by the growing abuses of governmental authorities in this country. The Second Amendment is based exactly in the citizen's need for defense of this type of abuse. It seems like a utopian solution to ban "weapons," but I believe Mr. Rodricks stretched the credibility of that idea this time.

Rick Frazier, Towson