Once again, gun control has become a political "hot-topic", at least for Republican presidential candidates. Giuliani has reversed his former opinion formulated when he was mayor of New York City. Huckabee wants every citizen to have guns, as he was recently quoted. As far as Democrats go, I haven't heard any "I am a hunter" statements, at least up until the time of this writing.

This all leads to more TV pundit discussions re: the 2nd Amendment. Here's the gospel (disclosure: I am a NRA training counselor and instructor Emeritus, and conducted SWAT training, civilian firearm training classes, security officer training, et al, for about 50 years). So let's take a good look at the purpose and value of the 2nd Amendment.

Our founding fathers understood the value of the populace knowing how to use frearms. Gun ownership was very important in the 1700s and is so to this date. For a long time, the Director of Civilian Marksmanship (DCM) program, wherein NRA associated gun clubs were able to obtain, at no cost, .45 cal handguns, M-1 rifles, .22 cal rifles, plus ammunition of each calibre, for use in training civilian marksmen. This was a tremendously good program, and I used it for teaching shooting to many individuals, and groups, such as the Boy Scouts, Civil Air Patrol, and other organizations, both large and small.

The DCM carried on the tradition of our citizens knowing how to shoot, and the value of firearm ownership. Why was this important to the country's first leaders? It was important because they understood that an armed citizenry was the best deterrent against a successful invasion of the country, and at the same time, was a denying factor against a foreign power's belief the the United States would be an easy target for conquest.

Talk about homeland security! Imagine what it would be like if we still had a system in place that followed those original concepts. A threat to the country? Not when we could have a couple of hundred million persons armed and trained - a formidable force indeed.

Of course, you can say that that idea is pretty old fashioned, what with all the modern weapons of war. But to successfully conquer a country, the aggressive army must get involved in real warfare - soldiers whi are armed, on the ground, who attack and destroy. And that becomes pretty difficult to do when you have a huge armed force ready to stop you.

Of course, this all depends, in part, on the interest, and ability, of our fellow countrymen to take up arms to defend their homeland. Other than those who volunteer for military service, would there be the strength inherent in the millions of other persons, young and old, to prepare for what may - or may not - occur?

All of this leads to another point of discussion - concealed weapon carry permits. With as many anti-social people running around our streets today, we need some way to weed out those who, by carrying a weapon, would be a detriment to the majority of the population. Aside from criminal background checks, psychological evaluations may be called for, such as the Minnesota Multi-Personality Inventory (MMPI), a useful test to help weed out those whose temprements may make carrying a concealed weapon dangerous.

Once a carry license is issued by a state, a national/federal carry permit should be issued, allowing the firearm to be carried in states that the wearer may visit. If the license is current, and the person moves to another state, that license should be recognized, and the individual then charged whatever fee the state has set for the licensing procedure.

An effective training/qualification program should be conducted nationally, so that everyone carrying will have demonstrated the same necessary knowledge and ability, regardless of where he or she lives. Training program should be set up and trainers should be certified based upon acceptable current standards, so that all firearm trainers will be on the same line.

Programs like this will work. For ten years, I trained security officers based upon a formatted state program (I was one of a number of certified trainers), and I can only think of one instance where a security officer, who was certified to carry a firearm, used it in an unlawful way (happily, not one of my former traines).

Think about this - the 2nd Amendment provides for a standing army - interpreted over the years as a National Guard. But having the National Guard as the only "civilian or quasi-military" group - which it certainly no longer is - still reduces the back-up of protective strength that an armed and trained citizenry provides.

A final point - although some of the constitution may need updating - the 2nd Amendment is "rock solid".