The 2nd Amendment, Considered

    In the latter years of the 1780's, in the time just after the guns stopped in the American Revolution, it soon became apparent to many men that the assembly of states under the Articles of Confederation was not working.  The lack of a Federal Government without any authority was leading rapidly to disaster, and, as several states were severely abusing the rights of others in matters of trade, a group of 12 delegates representing 5 states assembled at Annapolis to discuss a better way of handling interstate commerce. Most people, even those who claim to be students of American History, are ignorant of the import of this small assembly. I will not go into much detail here, but I do encourage readers to take the time to research the Annapolis Convention. It was the match that lit the fuse, and, for better or worse, the current crises of Government which we now face are ultimately solvable because these 12 men came together for a short 4 days in 1786.

    What I am about to say may cause some consternation to my conservative readers. Please bear with me, I promise, I have not fled the cause. The ultimate outcome of the events that started in Annapolis in 1786 was the Constitutional Convention. While I will be the first to say that a greater assemblage of political and philosophical thinkers has never come together, at least to my knowledge, they were not perfect, and they did not believe for a second that they created a perfect document. They created a constitution that was the best that could be assembled at the time. Now, here is where I am about to wade into treacherous water. We, as conservatives, need to quit focusing on what the "founders" wanted or intended. Honestly, 214 years after ratification, it is hard to impress people with arguments that what a group of rich, aristocratic white men intended matters. In short, it is not a defensible position. In fact, it is an argument that is not only easily brushed aside, but just as easily perverted. Witness Danny Glover's recent idiotic statements that the second amendment was added to protect slaveholders. This pathetic attempt to make the 2nd amendment into a race issue is nothing more than turning our own arguments on it's head.

    The founders realized at the outset of the union that the constitution was not perfect, and would need to be  changed to adapt to not only mistakes they may have made, but also to changing times. To do this, they provided for a very clear cut amendment process. It is not easy to amend the constitution, but it can be done, should there be a real need to do so. And that is what I now propose, in relation to the current gun control crisis.

    Based on polls that have been run recently, it is readily apparent that the majority of Americans are opposed to additional bans on weapons of the type that are currently legal. However, gun control advocates, continue to push there constitutionally questionable agendas based on the first part of the second amendment  the "A well regulated militia..." part.  This is dangerous ground we are walking on. We, as 2nd amendment advocates, continue to count on the courts to interpret the constitution, and this amendment in particular, the same way we do. To date, we have prevailed, but with Barack Obama in a position to soon be able to nominate more Supreme Court justices, just how tenable is this position? As we have seen in Roe V. Wade, the court is rarely willing to overturn a ruling once made, no matter how questionable it may be.

    So perhaps now is the time to seize control of the debate and propose a new, clearer constitutional amendment clearly outlining the rights of the people to keep and bear arms. This amendment does not require much legal mumbo jumbo. It should simply be "The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is further amended to strike the Militia clause, and is now to say simply, "The rights of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". This will take away all the gun control advocates constitutional arguments, and I believe the votes are there to get this amendment passed. Thoughts?