My response to a column by George Will in the "Washington Post"
As usual the range of opinion on this issue is fairly well defined, guns are good, guns are bad, you nuts, you sheep.
What is missing in the debate is the recognition of fact and goal.
What is the goal of those who want to remove firearms from public ownership?
I say firearms because even a casual perusal of any anti-gun media reveals the long term goal of banning civilian ownership of small arms.
The facts are the 2cd Amendment restrains both the Federal and State governments from infringing on the peoples right to keep and bear arms. This is under the privileges and immunity clause of the 14th Amendment. The fact that court at this time chooses, and it is a choice, not to abide by the Constitution and Bill of Rights should be viewed the same was as previous courts stances such as separate but equal, inter-racial marriage, woman's suffrage, etc. The court historically often refuses to recognize the clear meaning of the Constitution to further personal and political biases.
Perhaps more importantly the would be banners of handguns are not banning guns, but simply banning civilian public ownership of guns while seeming a small point it is in regards to our form of government a sea change from a government of the people by the people to one of ruled and ruler.
Statistically in the 40 states which now have concealed carry laws crime has gone down, especially violent crime. This is an inconvenient fact for those who wish to demonize an object rather than the criminal. It is the epitome of the nanny state which because some small percentage of the population can't be controlled the rest of the citizens must be.
While firearm safety education can and will reduce accidental firearm deaths, banning firearms will not reduce murder, suicides, robbery, or rape.
As to those who think the 2cd Amendment is anachronistic perhaps they forget the crime spree looting and violence after natural disasters such as Katrina and hurricane Andrew.
There are bad people afoot, given the opportunity they will harm you, there is no one who can or is under a legal obligation to protect you. Just because you currently live in a safe environment where you can ignore the reality of others doesn't mean it won't happen to you.
One of course wonders where the support for amending the Constitution to restrict 2cd Amendment rights is and why opponents do not use the mechanism provided by the Constitution to achieve their goals.