Gun control and the Second Amendment

The Supreme Court heard arguments about the D.C. handgun ban today in what appears to be becoming a referendum on the meaning of the Second Amendment.

The problem most people have in discussing the Second Amendment is that they don't seem to be able to consider whether we should have gun control separately from what the Second Amendment says.

That's a tangled web, though. For example, I don't think the Second Amendment precludes gun control. That doesn't mean I favor gun control, nor does it mean I oppose it. That's just my reading of the Amendment. Moreover, anyone who says the Second Amendment is perfectly clear to anyone reading it in the 21st century is a partisan--because it's not clear to contemporary Americans who aren't partisans. You have to imagine a radically different world from the one we live in before you read this amendment. What did they mean by "militia?" --much less a "well-regulated militia"? What did they mean by "arms?" Why did they link those two phrases? Any reasonable interpretation must address all three of those issues--not just one or two. Anyone who doesn't isn't reasoning--just hyperbolizing about his ideology.

The kinds of militias described in the Second Amendment no longer exist. Nor do the sorts of arms referenced by it. Do you seriously suppose the Founders would have countenanced every able-bodied citizen bearing an "arm" the likes of, say, a shoulder-mounted Stinger that can down a 747. "Arms" then meant muskets or, at the outside, flintlock pistols, all of which take a minute or so to reload, and have questionable accuracy and stopping power. If you want to stick to the "original intent" of the Founding Fathers, our automatic right to bear arms would be restricted to these muzzle-loaded weapons. But even if you think the Constitution is a "living document" no one in their right mind would claim the Constitution justifies me owning a Stinger. But if not, where DO you draw the line?

So I think we need to rewrite it in terms that are clear to any reasonable American living today. I don't say that from a position favoring or opposing gun control. I just think this will continue to spawn frenzied debate because it is so unclear to us. We could simply say "Adult citizens have a right to keep and bear arms, but governments have a right to regulate the ownership of arms." Or some such.