What does the Second Amendment really mean?

   The other night, a close friend and I got into a discussion about gun ownership in America. This friend has long been a staunch advocate of guns and gun ownership, while I have slowly come around to the acceptance of people's right to bear arms, though I'm still in favor of common-sense gun control. This particular night, we were discussing the United Nations' stance on gun control, and their latest efforts, at least according to my friend, to take guns away from law-abiding Americans through the Arms Trade Treaty, which is currently in the discussion stages. According to my friend, if this treaty is ratified, it won't be long before we see government agents coming to your door to get your guns.
   Intrigued, I decided to do some research. What I found is that the truth had been twisted almost beyond recognition. The ATT says nothing about confiscating guns from law-abiding citizens. Nor does it say a word about national gun registration, as the Gunowners of America lobbying group claims. The ATT is simply designed to give some uniformity to the international laws governing the illegal trade and transport of weapons. It is designed to keep the guns out of the hands of terrorists and drug dealers, not to disarm Americans. In fact, even supporters of the treaty affirm that each country has the right to regulate guns as it sees fit. In other words, we have nothing to fear.
   The controversy over the ATT does raise an interesting question for those who care to ask: What exactly does the Second Amendment guarantee Americans? To paraphrase, the Second Amendment says that a well-regulated militia being necessary for the national defense, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. But what exactly does that mean?
   Well, if you put it in the correct historical context, a militia at the time the Second Amendment was written was made up of every farmer with a pitchfork or a musket. In other words, the militia was the people, the regular citizens. And this is how gun advocates interpret it: That everyone who wants one should have the right to a weapon.
   An equally strong argument could be made that the Second Amendment should be interpreted using today's definition of militia. Under that definition, only trained police officers and members of the military would be allowed to be armed. While that argument makes sense on the surface, I see at least a couple of problems with it.
   First, as much as I hate to admit it, the gun advocates are right. If we take the guns out of the hands of responsible, law-abiding Americans, soon only the criminals will have guns.
   Second, if we take guns away from the people, it will, within a generation or two, create a citizenry that is terrified of firearms. If that happens, who, then, will serve in our military?
   I have come a long way since my early 20s, when I advocated confiscating guns and "making something useful out of them." Today, I would identify myself as an advocate for RESPONSIBLE gun ownership.
   What that means is that while I acknowledge every American's right to own a firearm, I'm in favor of three-day waiting periods, background checks for prospective purchasers and closing the "gun show loophole." I believe that gun owners should be held responsible for the proper storage and maintaining of their guns. Whether that means a gun safe or a secure lock and key, if there are children in the house, guns should be securely stored out of sight, with the bullets stored separately. Period.
   I don't believe that gun manufacturers should be held liable for what irresponsible people do with their products.That would be like holding auto manufacturers responsible when drivers have accidents. But if a child steals his parent's gun, takes it to school and opens fire, that parent should be held liable for that child's actions, since the gun was obviously not secured.
   Gun ownership is one of those rights that makes us uniquely American, just as our rights to free speech and freedom of religion do. But the freedom to own a firearm doesn't mean we're free of responsibility. If we're going to allow an armed populace, then it's up to us to make sure that we're thoroughly educated in the proper and safe use of those weapons. It's up to us to make sure that weapons don't fall into the hands of criminals or the mentally unstable. And far from passing new gun control laws, it's up to us to make sure the existing laws are properly enforced. If we can do those things, there should be no need to worry about losing our right to gun ownership in America.