I have written a lot on this site about gun control. I don't know who the liberal version of Frank Luntz is who trademarked the phrase "gun safety," but I'm grateful- it polls better. I wanted a bb gun long before the movie "A Christmas Story." As a teen, I shot a gun at a range in the Poconos. I admired stories of the old west and the Colt .45 six shooter, and I think Dirty Harry was cool.
That being said, I feel safer living where the gun laws are stricter, and statistics back me up. I believe that my unalienable right to not need a gun should trump your Constitutional right to own one. I believe that there are limits to that Constitutional right. I believe that my opinions as to the limits of 2nd Amendment rights are every bit as valid as those opinions on the right about the lack of limits.
So Let's explore this, shall we?
People on the right are more likely to use the phrases "for the Constitution," "original intent," and "literal interpretation." Okay, what does the 2nd Amendment say, exactly? Well, the transcript downloaded directly from the US Archives is as follows:
Amendment II
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
Most of the gun debate in this country focuses on the second half of the amendment, "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." However, this is not a stand alone statement. It is part of a conditional phrase. The right to keep and bear arms is conditioned on the fact that a "well-regulated militia" is a necessity for a free state.
For the sake of this argument I will stipulate that in this case the term "state" is not being used to refer to government, but literally means the individual state's freedom. That being said, it seems clear that the right to keep and bear arms is predicated on one's participation in a "well regulated militia." How can you have a well regulated militia if you oppose laws to regulate them?
There are those who may argue that the 2nd Amendment only prohibits the Federal Government from passing these laws. To them I say that in DC v Heller the Supreme Court incorrectly localized the it. I would also say that Congress' responsibility to regulate interstate commerce as defined by the Constitution means they are failing every time a gun sold legally in Georgia or Virginia is used in a crime in New York.
Justice Antonin Scalia recently said that it remains to be seen if a private citizen can own a rocket launcher. He claims to be an originalist. As Jon Stewart pointed out, the arms that we could keep and bear at the time of the Constitution's drafting were muskets. If you want a bunch of them, I'm down with that.