I am a gun owner.

Now, that phrase could mean a lot of different things to a lot of different people, so, by way of clarification:

I am not a member of the National Rifle Association.

I don’t belong to any form of white militia.

I do not, at this point in time, plan on overthrowing the government.

But, nonetheless, I am the owner of a firearm. A shotgun, to be exact – a roughly 80-year-old Western Field 12-gauge turkey gun, previously the property of my great-grandfather and lovingly restored over the course of the winter several years ago by my grandfather and myself. It’s seen every opening day of pheasant hunting season since then, as well as a few late nights in a barn loft looking for the occasional raccoon, opossum or other varmint.

Last week the Supreme Court heard arguments in a case challenging the District of Columbia’s ban on handgun ownership.

The fact that it took from 1791 until now for a case requiring a complete definition of the Second Amendment to come before the highest court in the land might be a good place to begin a discussion in defense of my great-grandfather’s shotgun.

An examination of the wording chosen by the writers of the Bill of Rights makes it fairly obvious that they weren’t kidding about the right to bear arms. Just to reiterate:

“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.”

Aside from poor capitalization skills, the vocabulary is really rather clear in its intent. Judging by the comma usage (my high-school English teacher taught English the old-fashioned way), the phrase “being necessary to the security of a free State” is a subordinate clause modifying both the previous and following phrases. As such, both a well-regulated militia and the right of the people to keep and bear arms are necessary to the security of a free state.

This defense of the Second Amendment assumes, of course, that we intend to live in a free state.

The closing phrase of the amendment, “. shall not be infringed,” functions as the predicate of this sentence, and as such denotes an action or, in this case, inaction. The right to those two things: a well-regulated militia and to own and possess – keep and bear – weapons are therefore deemed inviolable.

It was not without wisdom that these words were included among those 10 ideas passed down to us by this nation’s founders. Indeed, throughout history – from the Bible, to the Middle Ages, to the African slave trade – disarmament has either led or contributed to the rapid collapse of the liberties and freedoms enjoyed by a population. Do gun control advocates intend to join the subjugated and oppressed races of history?

Critics of the argument presented thus far might hasten to point out that the District of Columbia’s ban extended only to handguns, not rifles or my great-grandpa’s shotgun. What hypocrisy exists, however, if we are willing to protect the owners of only one type of firearm? What is the difference between picking and choosing which firearms we will protect and picking and choosing which races, religions or types of speech we will protect? Will we, at some unforeseen point in the future, deem the printed word far too powerful for consumption, banning columns such as this, while claiming justification on the grounds that speechmakers are still protected?

How essentially different is the right to bear arms from the quintessential right printed at the top of this page? Without one of our enumerated rights, none of them are viable. Without free speech, there exists no free press; without a free press, there is no free assembly; without peaceable assembly, there is no right to exercise religion. Without the right to arm ourselves and reasonably defend those rights from others who would deprive us of them, however, we have no rights at all, and our national story – the story of that “shining city on a hill” – will descend into nothing more than the tale of yet another people who were spoiled by their circumstances and squandered their greatest freedoms.

– Ryan Frederick is a senior in management from Orient.