Help for the Second Amendment

The Second Amendment to the Constitution has long puzzled legal authorities and ordinary citizens alike, owing to its peculiar sentence structure and the difficulty in interpreting its first, dependent, clause. This difficulty has caused a great deal of anxiety and name-calling between those who emphasize the “well-regulated militia” part of the amendment, and those who uphold the “right of the people” portion. Since no one really denies the right of the people to have some sort of firearm handy, but everyone gets confused over the meaning of a well-regulated force of amateur soldiers hallooing around with guns, it seems that it’s the first clause that will have to go. I herewith offer, in a spirit of patriotism and civic concern, three annotated suggestions for a replacement of the Second Amendment‘s opening clause that all of us can live with.
Suggestion Number One: “All the deer in the woods being a big nuisance, and even if they are not, it being a hoot to go out there and blast away at them, etc.”
This revision covers most cases of owning small arms, and may even extend to machine guns, rocket launchers and dynamite, as one can “blast” in many ways. If anyone can show that deer are not actually a “big nuisance” (hardly likely as long as there are gardeners), then the “hoot” clause provides coverage. The case of deer possibly going extinct is neatly covered by the “they are not “ wording. An objection may be raised that weapons activity seems to be limited only to “the woods”, but this is negated by the open-endedness of “out there”, which may be taken to include fields, streams, parking lots, shopping malls and church suppers, among other possible venues.
Suggestion Number Two: “The ability of any citizen to settle disputes in a manly way being central to a Judaeo-Christian society somewhat influenced by Hellenism and tempered by admiration for Roman virtue”, etc.
While this version might seem to be quite restrictive, in reality it balances an exhilarating permissiveness with sober responsibility. Anyone might get into a dispute, so anyone ought to be able to keep and bear. But on the other side, only “citizens” really get to do it, which effectively disarms illegal aliens and even legal aliens, for that matter, as well as felons and children. In rural communities and inner cities where nine-year-olds often carry guns, their rights can be protected simply by allowing them to vote. Female citizens need not be put off by the use of “manly” as it does not exclude them from owning weapons but merely characterizes the use of them as typically male behavior, something most women already believe to be true. Atheists and Muslims may take exception to “Judaeo-Christian”, but so what? They are always taking exception to something. Finally, the inclusion of Hellenism and Roman virtue opens the door to legalized assisted suicide, which might even bring the atheists back on board.
Suggestion Number Three: “It being a statistical probability approaching certainty that from time to time the executive branch may go bonkers, and that some of us will have to set them straight, etc”.
This third example is my personal favorite, as it gets nearer to the “original intent” of the founders concerning the Second Amendment as they wrote it. Additionally, it honors their effort to construct a document sufficiently vague as to be useful in any era. As a famous jurist has put it, “I cannot define ‘bonkers’, but I know it when I see it”. And each generation will certainly work out for itself not only the meaning of “bonkers” but also “set them straight”, not to mention “some of us”. But it’s the beauty of a written constitution that come what may, the ability to lock and load, just in case, remains inviolate in this version.
I am aware that in proposing three separate revisions, I may be open to the complaint that each one is only a partial solution. Rest assured that I have no objection to combining all three of them into one long, flowing clause if that is the only way to get the job done. Really, the larger the rationale, the more secure the safeguard. Plus it will generate a lot more business for lawyers just to figure out where to put the semi-colons. As a final note, I can imagine some doubters wondering how we will get along without the “well-regulated militia” part. To them I can only say, that’s what the National Guard is for. Isn’t it?