Attorney General John Ashcroft caused gun control nuts and assorted liberals to go ballistic last week by his radical assertion that, yes, the Second Amendment does indeed guarantee individuals the right to keep and bear arms.

That's exactly what most law-abiding, gun-owning people of this nation have believed all along. Apparently it was news to nanny-state proponents and other pantywaists around the country.

From some of the reactions, you would have thought the sky was falling:

"So now Attorney General John Ashcroft thinks he gets to rewrite the Constitution to reflect his personal opinions. His pronouncement . . . that the 2nd Amendment guarantees individuals the right to own guns, despite six decades of federal policy and U.S. Supreme Court decisions to the contrary, is another audacious move by a man who mistakenly thinks his job is to make, not enforce, the law," opined The Los Angeles Times.

More realistically, the National Rifle Association called Ashcroft's position a "breath of fresh air" to freedom-loving gun owners.

The meaning of the Second Amendment has been a matter of controversy throughout its history.

Does it mean citizens have a "collective" right to own guns only so states can have well-regulated militias; that citizens can possess guns only for the purpose of serving in militias?

Or does the Second Amendment mean that a citizen's basic right to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed upon because states may someday need to call them up for service in a militia? Legal scholars remain divided.

Based on writings of the time, Ashcroft believes the Second Amendment was understood to mean that individual citizens had a basic right to keep and bear arms. Individuals in the 18th century needed guns to hunt and for their protection. And they need them for their protection today.

Ashcroft is saying that the Second Amendment protects the right of gun ownership beyond what is reasonably related to the preservation or efficiency of the militia.

In a footnote filed with a legal brief to the Supreme Court, Ashcroft's position is explained as understanding that the Second Amendment "more broadly protects the rights of individuals, including persons who are not members of any militia or engaged in active military service or training, to possess and bear their own firearms, subject to reasonable restrictions designed to prevent possession by unfit persons or to restrict the possession of types of firearms that are particularly suited to criminal misuse."

Naturally, the gun control bunch doesn't like Ashcroft's position. It's a step backward for them. The true agenda of the gun control crowd is to eliminate individual ownership of guns, all guns, of any description.

And most liberals in this country prefer collective rights to individual rights. For them it may be OK -- but just barely OK -- to own a gun if it's strictly used for militia purposes. But individual rights often appear too dangerous for the safety, or best interests, of the greater society.

Liberals and gun control advocates should take a little breather. The sky is not falling. Count on the Justice Department to continue to enforce existing gun laws. Your next door neighbor is not going to bring home a 155mm howitzer.

All Ashcroft has done is to make individual Americans a little more free.

It is a breath of fresh air. But, of course, the Supreme Court can always take another view.

COMMENTARY \Bill Coulter is an editorial writer for the Houston Chronicle.