…reads as follows: “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.”

First, bear in mind first principles: that the first part of the sentence is the most important. Next, consider the “well regulated Militia.” There are two key parts in this first and most important section that are not happening enough in the US: regulations and Militias.

Those would be government regulations about fire arms and groups of people bearing them. As the framers of the Constitution would not have been able to imagine automatic weapons and modern handguns in general, it is necessary that legislators imagine and regulate them, but they have not to the extent necessary to stop the killings of hundreds of American children and more than a few innocent adults.

Allow me to jump to the part about “the security of a free State.” Anyone who is killed by a gun and who is not violating another’s security has had their own security violated. Amend the amendment!

Getting back to militias, there are many gun enthusiasts who are members of militias, and some of these have received negative media attention. However, if they are well regulated, as the second amendment states, these would be necessary and proper institutions for the exercising of this right. Gun clubs, well regulated, are OK. Militias, guys collecting weapons, target shooting, and preparing for the defence of our country, if well regulated, are OK.

In fact, since the train has left the station, the cat is out of the bag, and Americans are already armed to the teeth, this kind of institution is the last, best hope for gun control. And every level of government from municipal police, county sheriffs, state patrols, federal marshalls, the ATF, and the US military can and should participate in the regulating of these militias.

Having established the well regulated militia imperative of the second amendment, let us turn to the last and least important section of that single sentence: keeping and bearing arms. It doesn’t say anything about shooting them! It doesn’t say anything about ammunition! And why can’t we say something about the arms that existed around 1789? Perhaps it should not apply to any arms manufactured after the 18th century, what with ex post facto laws and all? Perhaps it should be as irrelevant as the third amendment?

But let’s back up to the first amendment, that thing about freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and the petitioning the government over grievances. If every grieving mother appeared in the press – the media, as should be her right, perhaps the people would think differently about rights? If every grieving mother’s dead child appeared in the press – on TV and all over the internet, perhaps the people would think differently about what is right? (Google “innocent dead shooting victims” or similar and you only get distant crime scenes or previously alive smiling faces – not the real deal. Prior restraint!)

Speaking of who is “Infringed?” Please! After centuries of misinterpreting this amendment, infringement is an unfortunate impossibility. Even if guns were completely banned today, they will never be an endangered species in the US. Anyone hoping for a career in politics would never suggest banning them, but someday someone will grow enough sack to persuade voters with the same to realize gun control is good for everyone, especially law abiding gun owners and children.