"A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed".

I believe that without the Second Amendment, the rest of the Constitution would be just one more political promise.

Even if the Second Amendment didn't exist, the Constitution would give the federal government no power to regulate firearms. Since the Constitution confers no such power, the Ninth and Tenth Amendments prohibit any federal encroachment.

I believe that the phrase "shall not be infringed" leaves absolutely no wiggle room. Any laws passed by any legislative body, any rules promulgated by any executive officer, any restrictions concocted by any judicial officer, regarding gun rights, are unconstitutional.

As an aside, here's a link to The Federalist No. 46, in which James Madison discusses the makeup and purpose of the militia. I think that he makes it perfectly clear that the militia is all armed citizens, and that its' purpose is to keep the central government from becoming too oppressive.

I've heard that there are over 20,000 gun laws on the books in this country (I've heard "over 40,000" recently). Well, I'm not even going to bother to count. We need one, and only one law dealing with firearms in this country: the Second Amendment, and that's it.

Republicans and the NRA are fond of saying that we need to enforce the gun laws already on the books. I disagree. I don't want to go to Washington to hold the line. I'm not interested in enforcing the tens of thousands of unconstitutional gun laws. I'm going to go there with an eraser, and I'm going to start rubbing.

Recently, the Justice department argued in a court case that the Second Amendment does indeed refer to an individual right. I agree. However, then Attorney General John Ashcroft affirmed that the federal government would continue to enforce all of the laws abridging that right.

Make up your mind, Mr. Ashcroft.
You took an oath to defend the Constitution.
You swore to God.
Mr. Ashcroft, God deserves better from you.
Uphold your oath. Start today.

If you can't find a way to honor your oath, Mr. Ashcroft, keep your chin up. When I get there in January, I'll be coming to help you with it.

It's vitally important to have a responsible, armed citizenry. This is what the idea of a 'militia' was all about. With over 200 million firearms in circulation in America, it is impossible for another country's army to invade us and hold our nation for more than one night. It is similarly impossible for our politicians to ignore the will of the people when the people are capable of massive resistance in this way. This is what the framers of the Constitution meant by 'militia', and they were well and fortunately inspired to make sure that this decentralized safeguard endured.

Nelson Mandela spent decades in prison. He could have gotten out years earlier than he did. The apartheid regime offered to release him if he would renounce violence, and call for African freedom fighters to lay down their arms. His reply to P.W. Botha was, in essence, "after you".

Many have noted that the most repressive regimes in history made sure to disarm their intended victims before they began the repression.

"Those now possessing weapons and ammunition are at once to turn them over to the local police authority. Firearms and ammunition found in a Jew's possession will be forfeited to the government without compensation... Whoever willfully or negligently violates the provisions... will be punished with imprisonment and a fine."

-- Nazi Law, Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons, 11 Nov 1938, German Minister of the Interior.

One of the most inspiring photos I've ever seen was posted on a libertarian candidates' web site. It was a photo of his grandfather in World War II Poland. This man was a member of the Jewish Resistance. It was a photo of a band of Jewish men and women, armed with automatic weapons. We should be proud that such a family decided to immigrate to America.

I'm sure there are those who vehemently disagree, who see the violence in America, and renew their calls for gun confiscation. If this is how you feel, bear with me for a moment: would you also call for the Mexican federal government to forcibly disarm the Chiapas rebels?

I also abhor the violence, but I point out that violence increased as gun laws were introduced, and has decreased as laws abridging the right to carry firearms have relaxed. A notable phenomenon occurred in Florida in the early 1990's: laws were passed to allow concealed carry again, and violent crime plummeted. Except for one very particular type of crime: carjackings of rental cars. Criminals knew that anyone coming into the state by plane were unarmed, so there was little to no chance of being met with armed resistance. Rental car companies eventually stopped marking their cars with decals, and the problem was alleviated to some extent.

The point is that disarming responsible Americans is not the way to alleviate violence. One responsible, armed teacher at Columbine would have cut the carnage short. Twenty thousand gun laws did nothing to prevent it. Four armed pilots or copilots would have made September 11th a very different event. The police can't be everywhere, and if you ask them, they'll tell you straight out: it is not their job, or their responsibility, to protect you. That's your job, your responsibility. Ther job is to catch the bad guys, almost always after it's too late for the victim(s).

I believe that responsible gun ownership should not only not be criminalized, I believe it should be honored. These are the people who keep tyrrany at bay. If you want to keep the First Amendment, you should definitely like the second one, because the first one won't last a week after the demise of the second.