The United States Supreme Court did the right thing Monday when it stood behind the Second Amendment to the Constitution, which gives American citizens the right to keep and bear arms.
It was disturbing, however, that the vote was only five to four, and not unanimous. The court was split along a liberal - conservative line in the decision.
We find it puzzling that language that is so clear in the Constitution had to be debated in the nation's highest court.
And what does that amendment say? "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."
Critics of this amendment base their zeal to keep you from owning guns on the word 'militia.' Now, we are not attorneys or judges, but a trip to Webster's reveals that a 'Militia' is an army comprised of citizens, not professional soldiers.
We know that from the days when militias were active in America, these individual citizens formed the militia with guns that were their own property.
If citizens cannot own guns, how could the militia be formed?
In Georgia, law-abiding citizens don't have much trouble buying a gun, but that's not the case in many jurisdictions like the nation's capitol, California, Chicago, and Michigan. We will leave discussion of the crime rate in these areas for another day.