The Supreme Court’s recent decision regarding gun control in Washington, DC, has returned this issue to the headlines. A central disagreement, as usual, concerns how to interpret the Second Amendment (the full text of which is at bottom). Part of the problem with this amendment is that it seems internally contradictory. It justifies the uninfringeable rights of “the people” in terms of the necessity of “a well-regulated militia,” but the connection between the two is not clear. Another problem is that it addresses gun-ownership rights in terms of “the security of a free State,” (italics added) when most – but not all - of the debate over gun-control laws these days centers on personal defense, individual liberty, and hunting. Finally, it is not clear whether the amendment limits only federal powers or those of the states, too.
Given these ambiguities, why not replace the amendment altogether? Let’s have a national debate and referendum on a clearer amendment that will address the central point of contention – who, if anyone, can legally control the use and ownership of guns.
