Time to End Gun Control

'The right of THE PEOPLE' to keep and bear arms shall not be abridge.' Those words which are found in the U.S. Constitution seem pretty straightforward and clear. They form the heart of the 2nd Amendment, which is part of what is known as the 'Bill of Rights'--the first ten amendments to the Constitution. It cannot be stressed enough that these words are part of the BILL OF RIGHTS. The first 10 amendments were inserted to preserve and protect basic individual rights. The right to keep and bear firearms is one of those protected individual rights.

This is of extreme importance because, simply put, most of the gun control laws on the books in the various states are blatantly unconstitutional. The reason is quite simple--these laws are designed to limit and in many cases discard a basic individual right as delineated in the U.S. Constitution. As long as I am not committing a crime with my gun, then I have the right to keep and bear that gun, 'unabridged.'

Only one candidate in the state of Alabama has as a plank in her platform that calls for the ending of gun control laws. That candidate is Libertarian Loretta Nall.

I can just hear the protests now, and I am ready.

I will cite these protests, one by one, and provide a rebuttal to each one.

Protest Number One--'Gun control, licensing, and registration is no threat to an individual right. We do the same thing with driving. Registering and licensing drivers is prudent, and no one loses their right to drive.'

One big problem exists with this argument. Driving an automobile is not a right. It is a privilege afforded by the states. It is not a basic right afforded to individuals in the U.S. Constitution. I do not need a license to exercise a basic right. Do I need to be registered to exercise free speech? Do I need a license to voice my opinion in the letters to the editor in the local newspaper? The citizens are free to exercise their rights unabridged, unless and until they commit a crime in doing so.

Protest Number Two--'The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to establish a state militia and not to give individual citizens the right to bear arms.'

This statement is contradictory. The first part of this protest has at least some truth, and that is that the 2nd Amendment does, indeed, establish a militia. But it is at this that the argument breaks down. The militia, as envisioned by the framers of the Constitution, was made up of all citizens. As a new country attempting to forge a trail of freedom in a dangerous world, its government had to be able to raise a fighting force at a moment's notice in order to protect itself. The best way to do this in the frontier age was a citizens militia that would be already trained and ready to fight at the drop of a hat. The citizens by and large already had guns. They had to. Life was hard on the frontier. Hunting was a way of life. The early Americans not only had guns but they knew very well how to use them. And thus, the underlying reasoning of the 2nd Amendment was that you use the armed citizenry that was already in place as your means of defense, i.e., the militia. The notion that the 2nd Amendment does not give individual citizens the right to bear and keep arms automatically makes null and void the concept of the militia as the Framers understood it.

In addition, the wording of the 2nd Amendment is quite specific. It does not stop with the establishing of a militia but continues to state unequivocally that the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall be unabridged.

Protest Number Three--'No other developed, industrialized nation considers carrying a gun to be a basic right.' Forgive my bluntness at this point, but, so what? When this nation was formed, no other nation on earth considered free speech to be a basic right. This nation set the standard for Republican styled Democracy as we know it. The fact that other nations around the world do not afford their citizens the right to bear and keep arms is no argument in the favor of gun control. We as Americans have historically believed this is a basic right.

I had an argument on this point several years ago with someone who was determined to prove that my ideas about guns were wrong. When I brought up the aforementioned point, she said, 'Well, then, perhaps it is time to get the Constitution changed.' I said, 'Have at it. If you think you can get enough support to strike the 2nd Amendment from the Constitution, then be my guest. Good luck.'

And thus, the bottom line views of the anti-gun bigots is exposed. It is not really that they 'interpret the Constitution differently,' as they claim. They truly do disagree with the U.S. Constitution and want it changed. Since any forthright proposal to strike the 2nd Amendment from the Constitution would be met with howls of protest and harsh opposition so strong that the proposal would never get off the ground, the anti-gun crowd has decided to attack it from the back door, i.e., load up the law books with so many regulations, controls, and limitations, that you render the 2nd Amendment meaningless without saying a word about repealing it.

This is precisely what opponents to the 2nd Amendment have been doing for several decades now. They have almost succeeded in their goal...but not yet.

It is up to us, the individual citizens, who care about personal rights and the Constitution to see through this Trojan horse ruse and stop it dead in its tracks. It is time to bid farewell to gun control laws. Our first step in that direction is to support candidates for public office who will go on record as opposing gun control.