document: That same correspondent accused me of calling for `` removal of all guns from American citizens through the implementation of total regulations . '' I said nothing like that . I said that although the Second Amendment has nothing to do with private uses of arms , there is an unenumerated but undeniable right to own a gun . We have many rights not enumerated in the Constitution , such as the right to marry , drive a car or own a dog . These rights are not denied just because the Constitution does n't mention them ; and the rights are not disparaged by the fact that we must obtain a marriage license , driver 's license or a dog license . In the same way , the right to own a gun is not disparaged by being licensed or otherwise regulated and controlled . One letter writer who also knows something about the Constitution , though disagreeing with me on another point , agreed on the central issue , that regulation of gun ownership and use does not violate the Constitution . All the letters missed entirely my point about requiring gun owners to `` sign up '' with -LRB- not `` join '' -RRB- the National Guard . I likened it to the current law requiring 18-year-old men to register with the Selective Service . Registering is very different from enlisting for active service . Requiring gun owners to register with the National Guard would provide the kind of scrutiny the Brady and Staggers bills contemplated , and , if Congress dared , could provide an additional measure of control over who owns what kinds of weapons . But my main point was to show how far Congress can go in gun-control legislation without exceeding its constitutional powers , using as a model the legislation of the Second Congress , which included most of the authors of the Second Amendment . Another letter writer thinks I have confused the issue by calling the duty to serve in the militia a right to serve , but if he will look at the debates in the First Congress he will see that there is no confusion at all , that the authors of the Second Amendment were talking about the right to serve . Consistent with all of the Bill of Rights , its subject is rights , not duties . Elbridge Gerry opposed James Madison 's clause exempting persons `` religiously scrupulous , '' because of the danger that it might be abused to discriminate against members of certain sects , `` to declare who are those who are religiously scrupulous , '' and then keep them out of the militia . The real issue is that the Second Amendment addressed a serious public concern , to protect the right of citizens to serve as defenders of the community in times of peril , not the personal uses of guns . And since the proliferation of guns in the hands of criminals has become a national calamity , as police officials all over the nation attest , it is essential that we recapture the true purpose of the Second Amendment . Plain and simple , it is no barrier to sensible gun control . Robert A. Goldwin Resident Scholar American Enterprise Institute Washington
extractive_keyphrases: gun control second amendment gun ownership national guard american citizens undeniable right
abstractive_keyphrases: gun-control legislation