document: Mr. Goldwin 's mistake stems from his having confused a necessary with a sufficient condition . The Second Amendment , in its language and its history , makes plain that the need for a well-regulated militia is a sufficient condition for the right to keep and bear arms . Yet Mr. Goldwin treats it as a necessary condition , which enables him to conclude that Congress could deny an individual the right to own a gun if he did not join the National Guard . Mr. Goldwin makes this mistake , in turn , because he has misread Madison 's original version of the Second Amendment , which exempted conscientious objectors from military service . Thus he says that `` In this version , ` bearing arms ' must mean ` to render military service , ' or why else would there have to be an exemption for religious reasons ? What right must not be infringed ? The right of the people to serve in the militia . '' Plainly , any conscientious-objector provision would arise not from a right but from a duty to serve in the militia . Yet Mr. Goldwin believes the amendment means , as he later says , `` that the right to bear arms meant the right to serve in the militia . '' Thus does he reduce the first of these rights to the second , when clearly it is much broader . Roger Pilon Senior Fellow and Director Center for Constitutional Studies CATO Institute Washington -- The militia is not the National Guard but rather the people of the original states . In Ohio , we have an Ohio militia that is not a part of the National Guard . The fear of standing armies and the control these armed men gave a central government was foremost in the Framers ' minds when writing the Bill of Rights . Thomas Jefferson moved to prevent this type of power in a few people 's hands by the Second Amendment . He stated , `` No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms . '' The addition in the early drafts of a conscientious-objector clause was added for the preservation of religious freedoms , which the Colonists had not had in England . It is unfortunate today 's `` scholars '' seem to spend their time picking apart history and the great thoughts of the visionary men who formed this country . In my personal celebration of this 200-year-old document , I have pledged the following : I will give up my freedom of speech when they cut out my tongue ; I will give up my right to worship when they have slain my God and myself ; I will assemble with the people of my choice even when they are imprisoned , and I will give up my rifle when they pry my cold dead fingers from around it . Samuel R. Bush III Cincinnati -- Let those who want guns join the National Guard , says Mr. Goldwin . Ah , the sanctimonious arrogance of it . What gives Mr. Goldwin the right to deny mine when I abide by the laws ? He stresses the differences between the world of 1791 and today to suit his prejudice . He studiously ignores other major differences between 1791 and today . In 1791 , punishment was swifter and surer . Plea bargaining was not epidemic ; judges did not provide revolving doors on prisons . There was no army of drug dealers and junkies preying on the public . If anything , the reasons for citizens to own weapons for self-defense are more compelling today than they were in 1791 . Let Mr. Goldwin show us how he would make us safer in our homes and we might understand his wish to strip away our only sure defense . Carl Roessler San Francisco -- Mr. Goldwin 's article is a casebook example of convoluted logic . Consider that George Mason -LRB- 1725-1792 -RRB- , the great Virginia constitutionalist , defined quite clearly the meaning of the word `` militia '' during a debate in 1788 . `` I ask who are the militia ? '' he said , and then answered his own question with the words : `` They consist now of the whole people '' -LRB- emphasis added -RRB- . Mason 's credentials are reliable : He is the author of the first 10 amendments to our Constitution . -LCB- There is a debate about who actually drafted the amendments -- Mason or Madison -RCB- . Further , a 1903 U.S. law defined the militia as not only the National Guard , but all able-bodied males between 18 and 45 . I , along with millions of other Americans , am not against sensible gun control , i.e. , licensing , character searches , etc. . What I resent is Mr. Goldwin 's agenda , which is removal of all guns from American citizens through the implementation of total regulations ; a direct violation of the Second Amendment through nefarious means . Edward F. Menninger Sterling Heights , Mich. . -- Mr. Goldwin suggests gun control via enlistment in the National Guard . Swell idea . Updating the right to bear arms from 1791 to 1991 , when I report for service I 'll bring , as required , a few items consistent with the current infantryman 's inventory : a Barett Light .50 semiautomatic sniper rifle , so I can reach out and touch people half a mile away ; a Squad Automatic Weapon firing 5.56 mm rounds at the rate of a whole lot per second out of 30-round clips or hundred-round belts ; a 40mm grenade launcher ... but you get the idea . Then , as a thoroughly modern , well-regulated militiaman , I 'll take my weapons home , just as did Morgan 's riflemen , and the musket bearers of Lexington and Concord , and the Colonial light artillerists . Andrew L. Isaac Canterbury , N.H.
extractive_keyphrases: gun control second amendment bearing arms national guard right
abstractive_keyphrases: mr. goldwin