Many people believe that the Constitution does guarantee the right to own a gun, and they refer specifically to the Second Amendment, which states: "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."
There's been a lot talk especially among the Left that this amendment does not say that gun ownership is an individual right. The reason, they say, is that the Second Amendment refers specifically to a "well regulated militia," which at the time the Amendment was passed pertained to a citizen militia, which we no longer have. So the Second Amendment doesn't apply to gun ownership in modern America, and therefore does not guarantee the right of an individual citizen to own a firearm.
But let's look more closely at the Second Amendment, because its main clause refers to "the right of the people to keep and bear arms," stating categorically that they have that right. The necessity of a well-regulated militia was (at the time) simply one important reason as to why that right should be respected, without implying that there were not other reasons as well.
But let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the Left is correct and that the 2nd Amendment does not recognize an individual right of gun ownership. Does that mean that such a right does not legally exist, because there is no explicit article or amendment in the Constitution specifically authorizing it?
Well, consider: Does one have the right to own a baseball bat? Is that an individual right? Since there is nothing in the Constitution that specifically recognizes it, does it therefore follow that one doesn't have that right? How about the right to own a house, a car or a bike? Nothing in the Constitution about those either. Can the government, therefore, take away those rights as well? Of course, the answer is no, because there is another, oft neglected, amendment that does recognize these rights, namely the Ninth Amendment, which states, "The enumeration in this Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
The Ninth Amendment covers gun ownership just as it covers bat ownership or car ownership, because, like the use of a bat or a car, the use of a gun does not necessarily violate anyone's rights. If it is used responsibly to hunt game, for target practice or for self-defense in an emergency, then its use is legitimate. Of course, it can be used illegitimately to assault people -- to violate their rights -- but then so can a bat or a car. And like a car, a gun can also be the cause of accidental death, yet the potential for accidents does not disqualify its legitimate use.
It is the Ninth Amendment that supports a right of gun ownership, just as it supports a right of bat ownership, house ownership, car ownership or bike ownership. The Second Amendment is unnecessary.