"A Right Or A Privilege..."

In the Air Force I was trained and served as a Security Police Officer. During both basic and advanced training at Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio, Texas I was instructed on the proper use of every type of firearm, which included a 38 caliber revolver, a riot shotgun and the M-16 assault combat rifle. I was certified as being an "Expert Marksman" in every weapon I was given to fire. During my tenure in the service I was never required to utilize a firearm in the performance of my duties and thankfully so. I was very much at ease with the firearms I was assigned to carry, as I respected their lethal potential and knew that I held in my hands literally half the power of God...to take a life.

Upon completing my service commitment, I vowed that I would never own or fire another gun. To this day I have upheld that personal pledge. Should one interpret this pledge as evidence that I am an avowed anti-gun proponent? Absolutely not. I am unabashedly a supporter and defender of the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment which, as I interpret its meaning, guarantees the right of every American citizen the right to bear arms. However, a personal right and/or freedom does not absolve the exerciser of this individual right and freedom to do so responsibly.

Without diverging to far astray in search of an analogous comparison, I liken individual gun ownership to the duties and responsibilities inherent to the privilege of operating a motor vehicle. As long as one operates one's vehicle in a manner that subscribes and upholds to the traffic rules, regulations and laws, one may expect to be permitted to continue to do so without interference or restriction from the governing authorities. It is when one operates their vehicle in such a manner as to be contrary to those guidelines that one is reprimanded by statute, which may include being denied further the privilege to have the continuing freedom to do so. In the most egregious circumstances incarceration may be the penalty. Not only is this behavior well within the purview of common sense, it is just the correct and proper means and method of doing the right thing. Gun ownership, albeit currently regarded as a right, still must be regarded equally as a privilege: it being the duty and responsibility of the individual gun owner to abide by the established laws governing gun ownership. Failure to do so, in most cases, results in levied time in jail or far worse.

The United States Supreme Court has this week agreed to adjudicate the constitutionality of the District of Columbia's long-standing ban on firearms by persons other than the local police force. Hanging the the wider balance is the entire argument on the right of all Americans to individually possess firearms. To one side are the proponents for eliminating this right as being both in the interest of the common good and to place in finality the pronouncement that the need for "a well regulated Militia" is antiquated and, therefore, no longer necessary or dependent upon our country's citizens possessing individual fire arms to fulfill that obligation. On the opposing side are the proponents that boil down their opposition to the ban on individual possession of firearms as being an over reaction to illicit gun utilization in the commissions of crime, stating simplistically that "Guns don't kill people...people kill people:" a rationale that bespeaks to the firm belief that responsible and law-abiding citizens posses their fire arms in a responsible and law-abiding manner.

Undergriding this argument is the recently released crime statistics from Texas and Florida that show that gun related crime has steadily declined in both of these states since their respective legislative bodies enacted the right that permits individuals to carry a loaded fire arm on their person. Listen...I'm not the brightest bulb in the overhead fan, but if I were a criminal and I possessed even a thimble full of self preservation sense about me, I would give more than casual thought to the possibility that that person walking down the street might be armed...and if they are armed on the street, there is an equal, if not greater chance that within the home owner's abode there is a strong likelihood there are also loaded firearms and a person or persons who are willing and able to use deadly force against my unwanted intrusion. Thus underscoring the accompanying argument, "if you take away all the firearms from law abiding citizens, then only criminal will possess firearms." Granted, statistical data can be manipulated to reflect a predisposed outcome, some times to affect two opposing viewpoints using the same data. But it is hard to deny that the precipitous crime rate drop in Florida and Texas isn't at least related in part to law-abiding citizens being permitted to carry and conceal personal firearms.

Here's my bottom line... Were I to be crowned "King For A Day," and it was up to me to determine whether or not any form of firearms would be permitted in society as a whole, I would abolish them all: I being foremost a proponent of "beating swords into plowshares." Idealism aside, I must recognize that the human race is infused with an criminal element that will employ any available means to inflict their evil upon the innocent among us. Firearms, therefore, in the right hands, specifically those empowered to protect and serve, are a necessary evil to combat evil. To entertain the unrealistic thought that only duly authorized law enforcement agencies can be in all places at all times is to invite the equally unreaslistic expectation that we citizens can always be assured of security of place and person at all times. The right to own personal firearms should be regarded as a necessary and prudent second line of defense against those individuals who would be emboldened to do us harm.

The question prevails, should every citizen carry a firearm? "Yes" and "No." It should be a matter of personal choice - understanding that existing gun laws must be upheld and obeyed by every law-abiding citizen who elects to do so - and not denied by judicial or legislative fiat without citizen voice input. The District of Columbia has a current law on the books - the basis on which the Supreme Court is to rule - that says in effect that no citizen may own any type of firearm. As a densely populated urban area, where crime historically is rampant, this law was issued by legislative decree for the purpose of promoting and maintaining the "common good," and passed arbitarily without D.C. citizen input. To do so, in my opinion, was wrong and an exercise of power that negates the right of each citizen to decide such issues. As it stands at present, the constitution guarantees each citizen the right to bear arms and may not be infringed upon by any government entity. Should the citizens themselves determine the benefit to forfeit this constitutional right, then allow the citizens to vote their conscience in either agreeing or disagreeing with that proposition.

It may be wild fantasy and speculation on my part, but I harbor a hope that the Supreme Court justices will undergrid and affirm in finality the right of the country's citizens to continue to bear arms without further restrictive interference from government to otherwise regulate beyond the existing laws currently in effect. Knowing that this august body can be too often swayed by prevalent public opinion and/or narrowly held opinion rather by the dictates of standing law - as was the outcome in 1857 when the Supreme Court upheld in the Dred Scott case that fellow humans defined as "slaves" were to be considered property - it remains my hope that the restrictionist on the current court will recognize and uphold the long-standing tenet that the second amendment is sacrosanct.

For me, I have no current desire to own a firearm, but I do not wish to arbitrarily absolve my right to do so should I ever elect to do otherwise. That is a constitutional right that I am not willing to relinquish.