The debate over handgun control has engaged both the lawmakers and citizens of this great country for many a year, and though I’ve been reticent on joining in that debate, it does not mean this issue has not been of concern to me.  After giving the matter much contemplation, which has included a thorough investigation of both legal precedent and emotional considerations, I have finally formulated a conclusion.  Not only do I believe that there should be no legal restrictions on a citizen’s right to possess a handgun, I believe there should be no restrictions whatsoever on any firearm at all.  I believe that if the serious collector wanted to add to his collection nuclear warheads, and he could afford to do so, then the government should not stand in his way.

I concede to the argument of my esteemed colleagues that a nuclear warhead could conceivably kill and maim hundreds of thousands of people.  However, that is the price of freedom.  We mustn’t let our fears, fears which very well may be unfounded, erode our Constitutional rights.  Our citizens have the right to protect themselves.  That argument is clearly stated in the Constitution.  Should we, as God-fearing Americans, be limited to how much protection we need?

I will further argue that hundreds of thousands of people are being killed and maimed already through the indiscriminate use of perfectly legal handguns.  Whether people are killed singularly or collectively, by one person or by many, should make little or no difference.

This is not, however, a debate about safety.  It is a debate about freedom.  Our ancestors -- our forefathers -- gave their lives to assure every American the freedoms that we have.  Today our brave soldiers stand prepared to give their lives as well.  We are all Americans, and as such, we should all be prepared to make sacrifices for freedom.  For what would this great country of ours be without the freedom of speech?  The freedom of religion?  And the freedom to bear arms, no matter how large those arms might be?