Wow seems to be the best suited word for summing up the sadness felt when seeing (firsthand) the eagerness many have when it comes to abolishing the very freedoms we're so blessed to have.

I can't help but wondering if those clamoring for the infringement – or outright abolishment – of our Second Amendment rights would be equally willing to make similar demands in regards to other specified rights. But upon a second thought I know that many of them would, as the Second Amendment is not alone when it comes to efforts designed to thwart the original intent.

True to form, most attacks use an old standby: citing a CDC study of highly suspect nature and highlighting the deaths attributed to guns. Supposedly such juvenile tactics are demonstrations of a superior wit: designed to shame us into willingly submitting our freedoms, lest some innocent child fall prey to those dastardly guns. Of course no self-serving whim is benefited without making good use of the penis argument; so that too, is typically tossed in. It would all be somewhat humorous if only the nature of freedom wasn't such a serious issue.

Lost in this vain effort to shock us out of our freedoms is the fact that the CDC includes those youngsters aged 24 (and down) in their “child” statistics. Suddenly the statistics take on new meaning; as the largest percentage (by far) includes those “children” who are of legal voting age. Oddly enough, that age group also includes the vast majority of those killed in gang-related activities. Left out is the fact that children – aged 14 and under – are far more likely to die from drowning than they are from a gunshot: in fact really young children are more likely to drown in a bucket.

But death isn't the issue here. If it were, the same people would be better advised to spend their time campaigning against hazards far more deadly (than the Second Amendment).

Nearly every “common sense” approach to registering guns includes a reference to our registration of automobiles. The argument is dependent upon either a willingness to infringe upon freedoms, or ignorance of the fact that we are not guaranteed a right to operate our vehicles on the public roads. The fact that approximately 12,000 more people die each year - in auto accidents - is conveniently left out as well. Obviously registration isn't the answer – more people are killed in auto accidents than are killed by guns.

Not to be outdone, in-hospital errors account for some 195,000 potentially preventable deaths each year. That's right – doctors kill more people than guns do. Substantially more. But I have yet to hear of the organization that demands we ban doctors. And doctors aren't even a Constitutional right!

Far surpassing both doctors and automobiles is the lefts' most cherished “right” of all: abortion. Roughly 1.2 million children are killed each year: these deaths aren't by accident, they aren't inflated numbers driven upwards by gang violence, and each one of them is preventable. Unlike the right to bear arms, abortion isn't even specified in our Constitution. Yet many – if not most – of those most ardent supporters (of gun bans) are the very same people who vehemently oppose restrictions on their ability to kill the unwanted.

Contrary to the claims; it isn't about the children.

Revisiting the deaths caused by doctor errors, we find the learned among us nodding in a knowing way: doctors aren't subjected to wild demands for their banishment (as a whole) because doctors (as a whole) do far more good than harm. And so it is with guns: studies have shown upwards of 3 million defensive uses each year. Most of which do not involve the firing of the weapon used in the defensive measure.

Contrary to the fictitious claims of many gun-grabbers, a gun is used far more to prevent crimes than it is to engage in criminal actions. There are a lot less rapes, burglaries and murders because we citizens are armed. That point is driven home (to clarity) in the statistics of those states with more lenient gun laws: without exception crime in general decreased in every state that eased its gun restrictions. Conversely, those states that chose to tighten their gun regulations enjoyed higher levels of crime across the board. Considering the fact that criminal actions are – by their very nature – against the law, is it any surprise that criminals choose to ignore the gun laws as well?

A pencil causes mistakes in the same way a gun causes crime.

Thomas Jefferson – though he had nothing to do with authoring the Constitution or the Bill of Rights – made his thoughts crystal clear. The same can be said of each individual who participated in the heated debates (during the framing and ratification): though many disagreements rose, not one quote has ever surfaced that suggests anything other than an individual right to bear arms. Those men made it clear that the Second Amendment was not open to creative interpretation – not even if your particular whims dictate a lack of understanding for the inclusion of our Second Amendment.

As many framers noted (and multiple justices since): in all questions regarding the spirit of the law, we are mandated to look back on the intent of those making the law and judge accordingly. In short: the original intent stands until Amended via the Constitutional process.

Despite the bold lettering, despite the pleas for a “rational plan” to abolish a cherished right, and despite the childish attempts to paint a Constitutional right with the penis brush; the so-called argument favoring “reasonable gun control” isn't about the deaths, it isn't about the children and it most certainly isn't about the intent of the framers. It is – and always will be – about infringing upon our rights.

Keep that fact in perspective the next time you decide that your whims outweigh the rights specified in our Constitution. The government that is powerful enough to take away my rights, is powerful enough to take yours away as well.

Most of us lock our doors and windows. Many of us make good use of home alarms, in addition to the tools previously mentioned. We do so in order to protect ourselves and our property: self defense being among the basic rights widely recognized since the very beginnings of this nation (long prior to any thoughts of a Constitution). It is this right of self defense that brought about the Second Amendment and its mandate that our right to use firearms (a tool) for protection cannot be infringed.

Samuel Colt was often called “the great equalizer” (he made firearms – specifically the very popular Colt sidearms). This was no slur, as he effectively made all men (and women) equal – offering those with the slightest physical abilities the same protection as the very robust.

Suppose the government decided to decree a ban on locks of all kinds in conjunction with a similar ban on alarms of any sort. Then suppose the government also mandated signs posted on all homes; declaring the fact that you are unarmed and incapable of defending yourself. What do you think would happen with the crime rates? Would you be a wide open target to all those who decided the law didn't suit their fancy?

Some of you will offer the right of self defense as protection against any such (silly) government mandates. To those, I'd suggest that such a right doesn't matter in your world; as the Second Amendment clearly prohibits your whims, but you attempt them anyway.

In fact I'd go one further and suggest that those favoring a ban (or restrictions) on law-abiding gun ownership be true to their voiced thoughts and volunteer to forgo the protections of locks/alarms while making good use of the suggested sign. If your expressed beliefs hold merit, wouldn't such action be warranted – if for no other reason than proving your point? Surely you'd have nothing to fear as the criminals wouldn't take advantage of your self induced state of vulnerability, would they? Besides, you don't even have to violate the Constitution that way.

Something tells me that your beliefs are little more than uncontrolled emotions dictating irrational responses to a topic that you don't begin to comprehend. Yet some spark of reason prevents you from taking your stance to the extreme; you won't disavow the tools you use for self protection and you won't announce your weakness for all to see. But you will continue to demand that others do that which you will not. And you'd stomp all over the Constitution to do it.

It's no wonder that so many of the framers eloquently expressed their vehement disregard for democracies.

A few other falsehoods need to be corrected:

There is no gun show loophole: federal requirements make it mandatory that all gun resellers be licensed and that all purchasers meet the minimum requirements.

Most states have similar requirements regarding individuals selling a personal firearm – though the requirements do vary from one state to another.

Studies show that children growing up with parents who are educated in regards to the use of firearms are better suited to fit into society (better grades, less crime, etc..)

The suicide statistics are misleading as well: suicide percentages do not drop with strict gun control laws. Other forms are used (boys choose hanging, girls choose pills) and the overall percentages remain almost identical.

There are over 22,000 gun laws on the books: many of which originated in an attempt to prevent blacks from exercising their constitutional right to bear arms.

The police are not obligated to protect you. Don't believe me? Try suing the police for their inability to prevent a crime against your person (it has been tried – the courts ruled that the police aren't responsible for your protection).

Government fears armed citizens.

Unarmed subjects fear government.