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. That is a specific and clear statement. You recognize it as the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. It of course has become a focal point of the discussion and/or argument about any legislation that would infringe upon that right.

The right to keep and bear arms is the right to defend ourselves. This is a right given to us by God and should not be infringed upon by any governmental entity created by man. Yet we have laws on the books that do infringe upon that right. For example, if you are convicted of certain felonies, you are told you cannot own a gun. Additionally, if you were deemed to be mentally unstable or unfit in some manner, you may also be denied your right to own firearms.

I'm going to say something that will likely be offensive to most people reading this, no matter which side of the gun control debate they place themselves. Any law that abridges an individual's right to keep and bear arms is unconstitutional and therefore should be held null and void.

Why should we accept limitations on any of our right to keep and bear arms when we do not accept limitations on our right to speak freely or worship as we desire? If someone says something offensive, they do not lose their right to speak in public. We may disagree with someone's religious beliefs, but we do not establish laws to limit their practicing of their religious beliefs. Free speech and religion can motivate people to commit heinous acts against others, but we do not take away their right to speak freely or practice their religion.

History proves one of our Undeniable Truths of Life: If you begin to cede any portion of a right to the government, they will return to take more of that right away from you. Every proposal put forth over the last decade as this debate has intensified proves that point. Average citizens are not allowed to own automatic weapons, now they want to take the so-called assault rifle, and next it will be 9-millimeter ammunition. It will never stop until the citizens are completely disarmed.

While this amendment was being debated at the time our Constitution and Bill of Rights were being written, the Federalist and Anti-Federalists agreed on two major points: first the Second Amendment would likely result in the federal government having majority control over a standing army and the militias: second, the federal government should have no authority to disarm the citizens. They disagreed on whether or not a citizen militia could defeat the standing army of the federal government. They also agreed upon one other point, that being the right of an individual to defend themselves, although this was not a significant point of debate.

Despite what you see from corporate media, statistics prove that Americans use guns to protect themselves from harm far more often than someone uses a gun two inflict harm upon others. According to National Crime statistics, in 2021 there were 1.67 million incidents in which private citizens used a firearm to protect themselves. In 81% of those instances, the gun was never fired. In many of those instances people were being threatened with bodily harm of all kinds and their lives were saved.

One of the reasons so many people may support some infringement upon this right is the possibility that someone with evil intent or an unstable mental condition could inflict harm upon others. Just this week there are four stories I have found without much effort in which guns have been used by private citizens to defend themselves and others. One includes a single mom who caught a man breaking into the house and trying to sexually assault her young daughter. Another includes a private citizen stopping an armed individual from entering a school. We have seen in countries with much stricter gun laws that these people will use whatever means are available to them to inflict harm. Even in America, more murders and violent assaults are committed with blunt force objects than with guns.

And we also have the problem of punishing the majority for the actions of a few. We have to get away from the idea that when someone commits a bad act, the rest of us must have our rights curtailed. No matter how many laws we put on the books, we are not going to stop this small group of people from committing heinous acts. Taking away the tool an individual will use to commit a crime doesn't solve the underlying problems that lead to them wanting to hurt others. They will just find another tool.

So let's deal with the underlying problems of mental health issues or poverty that lead others to commit crimes. That will do much more to stop these senseless killings then taking away guns. And yes, if someone wants to buy a fully automatic 50 caliber machine gun, get after it.

P.S. I will support one type and only one type of requirement in order to purchase or own a firearm: Prove that you are a legal U.S. citizen.