The OP is correct in pointing out that contemporary interpretations of the 2nd Amendment as guaranteeing an almost absolute individual right to buy and bear modern firearms are in fact really extremely modern and problematic interpretations.
It is true that the 2nd Amendment was the special product of a special time in early American society. It was specifically premised on the assumption that “well regulated militia” — something now mostly replaced by police forces and the military and no longer existing independently — were absolutely necessary.
The historical development of our country was rather unique in this respect. Alternative interpretations of the 2nd are possible, and “originalist” interpretations of the 2nd Amendment’s meaning are certainly possible. Furthermore, the “right of the people” is not the same as “the right of every individual.” The history and scope of “incorporation” of the 2nd amendment is another area that may be open to challenge in the states, as traditionally wide discretion in regulating rights to carry were historically allowed.
The the right “to bear arms” does not now apply to bazookas and Stinger missiles. They are extremely regulated and “afringed” by law. My point is that different Supreme Court rulings (especially if society itself were less divided on this issue) might accept very different interpretations of the 2nd Amendment. Another interpretation might even limit civilians bearing arms to slow single shot or bolt action weapons.
I am not pushing any specific alternative interpretation; I could live with any if I thought our nation was more mature and less likely to tear itself apart over this and similar political “wedge” issues. I think the 2nd could be usefully amended so that at least registration and “regulation” were specifically encouraged. But for many reasons this will obviously not happen in the foreseeable future.
Meanwhile, we are stuck with a 2nd Amendment wording which was admirable in its original idealism, moving and under certain conditions potentially useful, is also clearly confusing … because it is the product of a very different time:
“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.”
www.usmessageboard.com
