It will save a lot of time, effort and headache here to jump ahead to a critical observation. To wit, it is better to make the country so safe that people feel they do not need guns, than to attempt to take their guns away when they feel they still need them. Is that possible? It is. I spoke with a staunch supporter of the right to own guns recently and I asked whether on his last trip to the grocer he carried a gun. He replied that he did not. I then asked why not. While he paused to formulate his answer I suggested that perhaps the reason was that he felt safe enough without the gun. You can do this yourself. I then asked whether it is possible to make other areas as safe as the grocer.
In certain parts of the country there are in fact many city streets that safe, but for whatever reasons many other streets are believed to be more dangerous, perhaps justifiably.
We know what makes streets safe. One thing is good lighting. When the Second Amendment was written there were no electric lights. Our ability to monitor the world around us and communicate has improved dramatically; telephones, radios, portable cameras and video recorders. Now there are video camera systems less expensive than video game systems. The legislators at the initial time of the Second Amendment knew nothing of these improvements.
We also know what makes streets more dangerous. When large numbers of people do not support the law or feel disenfranchised or separated out, the streets might be more dangerous.
And the notion that abortions reduce crime fails to account that unrestrained sexual promiscuity leads to a very disorderly and crime ridden society itself. Fear of God is the least expensive means to order society and always will be.
The existence of such paradoxes as we need abortions but not guns indicates that people are not thinking through their motives. There are more talk shows, but the debate is still sailing over the truth. We need more journalists like me and articles like this one to press the interview and the issue till the underlying motives are clear.
Responsible gun owners very much want to keep the Second Amendment. They want society to be safe, safe enough that allowing abortions doesn't make sense, and keep their guns as well. That is to be expected. I would guess that only after society has proved very safe for a very long time will they become less concerned about keeping their individual guns. I think the Second Amendment might well stay on the books forever, but I believe there comes a time when we don't need to rely on it in debates. In debates we should rely on logical reasons first and only then back them up with laws that old. I believe the logic is strong enough to carry the debate without the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment should be saved for tougher cases as they might arise.
The people responsible for the Second Amendment left this Earth many generations ago. As much as I would like to speak to their ghosts I have not been directly able. I suspect the meaning was a Democratic one at first. Before there was cultural inversion the "Democrats" (Anti-Federalists about those days) were for a weaker central government. It was likely "Republican" (Federalist about those days) pressure that put the "well regulated militia" part in the mix. They were for a strong central government before cultural inversion. The overall idea was that the government shouldn't get too strong, shouldn't imagine itself infallible with guns, should allow the private citizen self defense. What presents itself now in the Washington D.C. controversy is not so much government concern with safety as government concern with its reputation for safety, the lawyers want you to think they are more effective than they have really proved so far. That is precisely what I believe the Second Amendment was intended to forestall. Mr. Madison? Are you there?