It has been said that the difference between a conservative and a liberal is that a conservative interprets the body of the Constitution literally and the Bill of Rights loosely, while a liberal interprets the body of the Constitution loosely and the Bill of Rights strictly.  This issue demonstrates the fallacy of that premise.

The Second Amendment to the Constitution, part of the Bill of Rights, 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."  (from the Website www.law.cornell.edu/constitution)

It has been argued that a "well regulated militia" is the definition of America's National Guard, and as such, individuals in society need not have the right to possess firearms.  It is my contention, and that of many like me, that "the militia" is EVERY person capable of using a firearm in an appropriate and lawful manner, and thus includes every law-abiding citizen in the United States, not just those "between the ages of 17 and 45", which is the dictionary definition of a militia.

Proper regulation, like everything else, begins with the individual and the training they receive.  If a person is taught to respect the firearm as a device with the potential to deal death, whether purposely OR accidentally, then they will be more likely to observe common-sense rules when handling a firearm (such as never pointing a firearm at another person without the full and serious intent of using it).  Unfortunately, many today are taught rules of gun safety through movies and video games, and believe that there are unlimited rounds in the magazine, the enemy invariably misses, and that an unlucky hit taken can be repaired by hitting the "Reset" button.  Such is not the case in real life.  A firearm is a tool, and does not care how, by whom, or for what purpose it is used.  The point at which the individual recognizes this basic fact is the point at which firearm safety begins.

The Amendment continues "...being necessary to the security of a free state,...".  This should be obvious to any casual student of history.  In oppressive regimes, whether based on monarchism or totalitarianism one-party rule, firearms are only allowed in the hands of the rulers.  Period.  The normal citizenry are not allowed to own firearms for fear that they will eventually rise up and throw off their oppressors, and so firearms are first located by registration, then forcibly removed from the hands of the people.  This is why any attempt at a national registration of privately-owned firearms has come under severe attack from those who feel that the Second Amendment specifically grants the people the ability to protect themselves and their valuables (including their loved ones) from either outside attack or oppression from a government out of control (which, fortunately, has not yet occurred in the history of the United States, the Civil War being the closest action to this).

Finally, the Second reads "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.".  The most important word in this line is the one after the comma.  "SHALL not".  Not "should not", or "maybe will not", but "SHALL not be infringed".  This means that as long as the Second is in this wording, neither Congress, the individual states, nor the people as a whole are allowed to pass any law that precludes or restricts any law-abiding citizen from owning a functional firearm.

Of course, that is not the case.  The Brady Act of 1993 requires a five-day waiting period before a person may purchase a handgun through a licensed dealer, and that state law enforcement officials must run a background check to determine the prospective buyer's suitability for ownership (previous felony record, mental illness, or domestic violence history are the criteria cited).  This Act is unConstitutional on the face of it, because in requiring ANY waiting period, it violates the Second's "shall not be infringed" clause.  A District Court judge found in 1994 that the part of the Brady Act requiring officials to make a background check overstepped the Congress's authority under the Commerce Clause, and thus was in violation of the Tenth Amendment.  Yet the Brady Act remains in law, and the waiting period/background check continues.

Very simply, there should be no let or hindrance in owning a firearm if a person is a law-abiding citizen.  Licensed gun dealers should be required to gain clearance from law enforcement so that they can access NCIC records of felons.  In this manner, an on-the-spot decision can be reached, law-enforcement personnel can be released to pursue other duties than checking backgrounds, a potentially illegal transaction can be avoided, and the Second and Tenth Amendments are not violated. 

The Cold Hard Fact is this:  Gun control is being able to hit your target.  Any usurpation of the dictate of the Second Amendment is not "gun control", but rather "gun restriction", and thus is not Constitutional.