Column: People who don't know how to use guns shouldn't

"Absolute power corrupts even when exercised for humane purposes. The benevolent despot who sees himself as a shepherd of the people still demands from others the submissiveness of sheep ..." Eric Hoffer

Let's talk about the Second Amendment to our Constitution. It says: "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's it ... the whole thing!

Now, the anti-gun people are crying that this simple amendment is being "distorted" by evil gun lovers. It's true that opposing lawyers taking opposite positions on most anything can and do stretch interpretations in favor of their own hopeful conclusions. And this is certainly apparent with gun control fanatics who choose to limit the Second Amendment to suit their own purposes. Let's herewith examine our Second Amendment, always keeping in mind that it was ratified in 1791, using common sense to make sure we understand what our nation's founders intended.

A well regulated militia is a body of civilians trained in soldierly activities, both active (National Guard) and inactive, for the purposes of maintaining the security of a free state. Note that it doesn't say "the security of the United States." A militia is not the armed forces! Now, what is a free state? Is it a state limited to the control of presently elected officials? I think not!

What if those elected officials use every trick in the book to subvert or ignore our Constitution for the purpose of turning us into a totalitarian state? In that case our civilian militia has the right and the responsibility to restore, by force if necessary and if possible, our status as a free state.

Now, the right to keep and bear arms is pretty specific. While I grant you it doesn't cover hunting, target practice, competition shooting and self defense specifically, it does cover those activities when you take into consideration when the Second Amendment was written. In those days hunting with guns was often a necessary way of putting meat on the family table. And shooting game requires great skill, so it becomes obvious that target practice was also necessary, especially with flintlocks and black powder. And self defense? There was never any question in 1791 that guns would be used for defensive purposes.

That fact that a Supreme Court justice has claimed that the Second Amendment has been distorted by the NRA and doesn't grant an unlimited right to bear arms doesn't impress me in the least. Few government appointees are going to support any activity which might one day be a threat to their own authority and power. That is a fundamental fact of political life! And anybody who thinks that Supreme Court justices aren't political had better think again. The saddest part of all is that few Supreme Court justices ever qualify as legal scholars.

Concerning a Denmark study purporting to show that when guns are present the victim of a murderous attack is more likely to be killed, I strongly question Denmark's credibility, of all European countries, to render such a ridiculous verdict. Denmark knows nothing about guns. Danes don't own guns. And Denmark historically has been easily overrun by aggressors. Why? Because her citizens are always unarmed.

Concerning spurious studies claiming that guns in the home for protection is a myth because with guns in the home there is a 41 times greater chance of causing injury or death to a household member than ever using a gun against an intruder, I can only say that in households that dumb I wouldn't be surprised. People who don't know how to use, care for, and store firearms properly have no business owning them. But why should their ignorance and stupidity curtail my right to have firearms in my home? I am thoroughly trained. That choice is mine and mine alone!

I really get a kick out of liberals when they're on a crusade. Normally, they take the position that education solves all problems, that through education mankind can overcome its deficiencies. But when we conservatives take the position that education can solve the problems of gun safety, it falls on deaf ears. What's so complicated about required gun owners to demonstrate and prove they've been through comprehensive firearms training before they can own or use their firearms? Nothing! I'll buy that and I'll bet the NRA will too.

No, the sad fact is that gun safety is only a smoke screen to divert our attention from the real mission of gun control advocates, that is, to disarm our entire civilian population. Big government lovers can't stand the idea that a non-military civilian here in the U.S. can and will foul up their works should they ever attempt selling us out to a one world government. I doubt they care a whit about the number of innocent people who would be killed trying to forcefully disarm our citizenry ... After all, doesn't the "common good" justify the means?