The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban was allowed to lapse, two weeks ago. Lock your doors and stay inside; criminals will now be roaming the streets with AK-47s and Uzis, right? Not exactly.

Criminals could always get assault weapons illegally. Besides, the ban had little substance. Manufacturers could get around the loosely defined term "assault weapon" by taking a few minor features off their guns. Then again, why does somebody need assault weapons? Certainly not for hunting.

I think there is a legitimate use for these weapons, though, and it has to do with the Constitution. The Second Amendment says "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."

In plain English, that means that a privately armed citizenry is needed to protect the country from both foreign and domestic threats, and for that reason the government cannot infringe on the people's right to own and carry arms. But what does "arms" mean, anyway? I did some historical research, and it is clear that the Fore Fathers meant any weapon you could get your hands on (at least in that time period). Of course, in the modern age, that includes assault weapons, which seemingly makes the Assault Weapons Ban un-Constitutional.

But wait a minute.

If "arms" means any weapon out there, then Constitutionally we should be allowed to buy nuclear bombs, anthrax and B-2 Stealth Bombers, right? Well, yes and no. If you look solely at the Second Amendment then the answer is yes. But you simply cannot allow any old person to go out and buy a nuke, especially in an age of global terrorism. So does this mean that we have to violate the Second Amendment and the Constitution? Not quite.

The Second Amendment is, after all, part of the larger Constitution. The Preamble to the Constitution says, among other things, that the Constitution was written to "insure domestic tranquility" and "promote the general welfare."

Obviously, no Amendment can go against this, and I am pretty sure that if someone was allowed to walk around with a nuke in his or her backpack that things wouldn't stay very tranquil.

There has to be a line drawn somewhere to distinguish what weapons you can and can't own.

Any weapon carries with it the risk of disturbing domestic tranquility and harming the general welfare, but the men who wrote the Constitution realized that given the power of weapons used at the time, having an armed citizenry was just more important. The reason was to make sure that people could defend themselves from each other, from foreign enemies and perhaps most importantly, from the government itself.

Things have changed, but we still need to be able to defend ourselves. I think you can draw the line between what is necessary for defense and what is overkill by mandating that we, the people, be armed well enough to defeat a foreign army, or our own government. We have seen, in places like Vietnam and more recently in Iraq, that a determined guerilla army can be effective against our military might. Even with all of our high-tech weaponry and special training, it's hard for us to beat a group of relatively lightly armed, but very determined fighters who know the land and the people.

I think that allowing assault weapons protects the general welfare without infringing on our right to self-defense.

Many will balk at the idea that we should allow dangerous weapons in case we someday have to protect the greater good. I have never experienced gun violence, and I am sorry for those who have. There is no doubt that banning guns would stop accidental shootings and those times when someone just snaps and uses a gun. I am not trying to be a heartless beast, but I just feel that strongly about personal freedom, because it is the backbone of America.

However, there is no doubt that we need more responsible gun policies. The Constitution says that an armed people need to be well regulated. Before being licensed to own a gun, you should have to demonstrate that you know how to use and keep it safely.

Some will also say that we don't need to defend ourselves from the government or any other military threat. For the time being, those people are right. Presently, there is no need for a second Revolutionary War, and no one is set to invade us. But if history has taught us one thing, it's that times change, and the short-sighted don't survive long.

We may never have a reason to fight our own government, but if you use that as an excuse to violate the Constitution then you have taken one more step toward an oppressive regime. Yes, allowing people to carry weapons is dangerous, but freedom itself is dangerous; there is always a chance that someone will abuse that freedom.

Some freedoms are simply too important to let go. It's a grave responsibility, but that is what has made America the country it is today.