John Ransom

Steve of CA wrote: Personally I do not own a gun and would not feel safer if I had one, but I do not have a problem with law abiding people buying guns. That being the case, I have to ask of Mr. Ransom and others here, what controls, if any, do you favor over the purchase and use of weapons, including semi-automatic weapons such as the one used by the killer in Aurora? Or do you think we have too much gun control with the laws we have now? - The American Solution: Reach for the Guns

Dear Steve,

The 2nd Amendment allows no restrictions on a citizen’s right to arm themselves, although various Supreme Court decisions- which I disagree with- have allowed the government to restrict the right to bear arms through permitting and sale restrictions.

Proponents of gun-control argue that the phrase “well regulated militia” means that the founders only intended that the right to bear arms would apply to a militia. But the history of the term and the history of the right to bear arms would argue against that conclusion. Instead, it is clear that a plain reading of the 2nd Amendment considers a well regulated militia as an outgrowth of the individual’s right to arm themselves:

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.

In other words, in order to have a well regulated militia, sufficient to ensure the security of a free state, you must first allow no infringement on the right of people to keep and bear arms.

The 2nd Amendment is not the right to a militia, nor the right a free state; it is instead a blanket denial of the government’s ability to infringe on the right of the individual to arm themselves to protect their freedoms.      

John Ransom

John Ransom is the Finance Editor for Townhall Finance, host of Ransom Notes Radio and you can catch more of the best money advice and monetary commentary by him daily 10am PT, 1pm ET at or on Comcast Cable