That same correspondent accused me of calling for "removal of all guns from American citizens through the implementation of total regulations." I said nothing like that. I said that although the Second Amendment has nothing to do with private uses of arms, there is an unenumerated but undeniable right to own a gun. We have many rights not enumerated in the Constitution, such as the right to marry, drive a car or own a dog. These rights are not denied just because the Constitution doesn't mention them; and the rights are not disparaged by the fact that we must obtain a marriage license, driver's license or a dog license. In the same way, the right to own a gun is not disparaged by being licensed or otherwise regulated and controlled. One letter writer who also knows something about the Constitution, though disagreeing with me on another point, agreed on the central issue, that regulation of gun ownership and use does not violate the Constitution. All the letters missed entirely my point about requiring gun owners to "sign up" with (not "join") the National Guard. I likened it to the current law requiring 18-year-old men to register with the Selective Service. Registering is very different from enlisting for active service. Requiring gun owners to register with the National Guard would provide the kind of scrutiny the Brady and Staggers bills contemplated, and, if Congress dared, could provide an additional measure of control over who owns what kinds of weapons. But my main point was to show how far Congress can go in gun-control legislation without exceeding its constitutional powers, using as a model the legislation of the Second Congress, which included most of the authors of the Second Amendment. Another letter writer thinks I have confused the issue by calling the duty to serve in the militia a right to serve, but if he will look at the debates in the First Congress he will see that there is no confusion at all, that the authors of the Second Amendment were talking about the right to serve. Consistent with all of the Bill of Rights, its subject is rights, not duties. Elbridge Gerry opposed James Madison's clause exempting persons "religiously scrupulous," because of the danger that it might be abused to discriminate against members of certain sects, "to declare who are those who are religiously scrupulous," and then keep them out of the militia. The real issue is that the Second Amendment addressed a serious public concern, to protect the right of citizens to serve as defenders of the community in times of peril, not the personal uses of guns. And since the proliferation of guns in the hands of criminals has become a national calamity, as police officials all over the nation attest, it is essential that we recapture the true purpose of the Second Amendment. Plain and simple, it is no barrier to sensible gun control. Robert A. Goldwin Resident Scholar American Enterprise Institute Washington
The author of an article in Congress believes that opponents of gun control write passionately but do not read well. He forms this opinion from some "Letters to the Editor" he received in response to his article recommending sensible gun control. One letter writer accuses him of wanting to remove all guns from American citizens through total regulation. The author vigorously denies making any such statement. Other writers accuse him of distorting the Second Amendment on the "..right to keep and bear arms." The author simply maintains that the Amendment is not a barrier to gun control.