by Michael Grant

Created on: July 24, 2007

Gun control laws are absolutely compatible with the Constitution's right to bear arms, just as prohibitions against screaming "fire" in a crowded theater are consistent with the right to free speech and prohibitions against libel are compatible with freedom of the press. The problem with the second amendment is that it is poorly written and an obvious anachronism in an otherwise remarkably resilient document.

Trying to read the minds of the framer's of our Constitution is a difficult endeavor. But it helps to try and view the language within the context of the times in which they lived.

For example, the people who wrote that is was "self-evident" that "all men were created equal" held slaves. This is possible because they were discussing the "Divine Right of Kings" and were referring to someone being born into power. As it turns out, the anti-slavery interpretation that an 19th century audience would apply to the words "all men are created equal" or the anti-discrimination interpretation that a 20th century audience would apply was not at all "self-evident" to the framers.

The dreaded second amendment: "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."

I understand that the United States has nurtured a gun culture throughout its existence, and gun ownership is equated with freedom and liberty and self-preservation. But any sane reading of that amendment has to conclude that it was written to address the people's right to take up arms against potential oppressors - external or internal if the government stops representing the will of the people. The amendment was written at a time when a group of people armed with muskets could defy the will of the King of England and an army of redcoats.

The modern army has rendered the amendment moot; no rabble of volunteer revolutionaries is going to topple the might of the United States military in an overt coup. Remind yourself of Kent State. And between the army, the national guard, state and local police, a well-regulated militia seems to be readily available regardless if someone is allowed to buy a shotgun at WalMart.

The U.S. Constitution is an extraordinary document, but it is time to confront the fact that the second amendment is not merely an anachronism; it is responsible for the death of thousands of Americans each year.

One does not need a snub-nosed pistol or an assault rifle to hunt or to defend one's property. Nor does one need the ability to buy a gun "on-demand" without a waiting period.

If anything, literal readings of the second amendment make sane gun control difficult and life in America more violent.

Learn more about this author, Michael Grant.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.