By Glen McAdoo

It has taken me about 30 years, and what's happened lately, to come to the conclusion that it is not liberals, but conservatives that ultimately may become the real threat to the Second Amendment and the Constitution in general. That's argumentative, I'll admit.

The best safeguard of the right to bear arms is a more activist interpretation of the Constitution that would consider the original debate of the Second Amendment and conclude that the founding fathers, while they may not have envisioned the type of weaponry that gun owners may purchase today and the standing military we have now, nevertheless, did intend to protect the right to bear arms in the broadest sense.

What some may consider a prerequisite, a well regulated militia, is superfluous to what was intended by the authors. My friends, that is a liberal interpretation of the Second Amendment and not that of a strict constructionist. Liberals need to understand this.

I do think that laws which cause only an inconvenience to gun owners and are directed at criminals and lunatics, seem reasonable and within the boundaries allowed by the Second Amendment. Still, we must tread gently into those waters.

I can remember a time, not so long ago, when I adamantly supported a ban on assault weapons. But given the fact that many rapid fire automatic weapons can be converted into, or considered assault weapons, such a ban is not effective and only inflames those who believe that gun laws are being adopted that only serve to restrict the rights of law abiding citizens, diminish Second Amendment protections, and do nothing to protect the public. So, I've changed my mind.

A lot of soul searching and study has led me to the conclusion that those of us that support a liberal interpretation of the Constitution allowing people freedom to the greatest extent possible, must also support the liberal interpretation of the Second Amendment. That doesn't mean you have to be pro-gun.

You can always exercise your First Amendment right to argue against guns, but that should not include an attack upon the Second Amendment. That is the only way to be consistent if you contend the Constitution protects the right of privacy, the right to be free from searches without warrants (such as the current NSA telephone surveillance program), and a progressive interpretation of the First Amendment.

You may not like the fact that the Constitution allows Nazis or the Klan to march in our streets. You may not like it when someone burns the flag in protest of government policy. You may not like it when judges find that the right of people of the same sex to marry is protected by the Constitution. You may not like it that the Constitution allows conduct that runs contrary to your religious doctrine. You may not like it that the war on terrorists may be more difficult when the government must comply with constitutional protections. You may not like it when so many people use guns to wreck havoc in our neighborhoods and schools.

But, we can not fail to protect those freedoms others cherish, although we may find them offensive or trivial, and at the same time protect those freedoms we cherish. That is the price of freedom. Judges must never decide constitutionality based on what may be popular or trendy.

The Constitution originally failed to allow for the equal protection and rights of all its citizens. It has been amended over the years. Slavery has been abolished. Women now have the right to vote and participate in our government. After many years, laws now protect all people regardless of race or gender from discrimination in many areas, including housing, jobs, and education.

I believe the only amendment that was passed that restricted the freedom of people was prohibition. It was an abysmal failure.

Now debate rages in the halls of Congress on other proposed amendments that would further erode the equal protection and freedoms that we now enjoy. This is being done because of the courts unpopular interpretation of the Constitution and it's amendments. We must fight the temptation to allow our fears or prejudices to cause us to support the erosion of our rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

To my liberal friends, you must understand that this also includes the vigorous defense of the Second Amendment and the protections it affords those that may hold a different opinion than you regarding firearms.

At the same time, I would caution some gun advocates to seek a less abrasive and vitriolic manner (not that I always do) to articulate your concerns. People will listen, as I have done over the years, to reasoned and sound argument. Understand that liberals can be and should be your greatest allies. I trust your defense of the Constitution will not be limited to the defense of the Second Amendment.

It behooves all Americans to oppose the adoption of ill-advised freedom limiting changes to the Constitution and to defend it from attack, whether it comes from the left or right.

Glen McAdoo may be reached at glynn@phonewave.net