The Second Amendment vs. the wordsmiths

In Sunday's NY Times there was an op-ed piece entitled, Clause and Effect (NYTimes, 12/16/2007), in which the writer was discussing the effect of punctuation on the way our Supreme Court interprets the Second Amendment about the right to own and bear arms. After reading it I was inspired to draft up a letter to the editor, offering a different approach to the problem. Unfortunately my letter quickly ran past the recommended 150-word limit for letters to the Times, so I decided to post it here instead.

Greetings -

Glad to see that the Supreme Court has decided to take a look at gun control and the second amendment again - this alone fills me with optimism. Being somewhat of a wordsmith and a sometime punctuation pedant myself, I understand well the allure of debate around the phrasing our forefathers used in laying down the second amendment. Unfortunately I believe much intellection has been spent uselessly on this debate since it is impossible for anyone to know what, in fact, was in the heads and hearts of the authors when these 27 words (and the attendant two - or was it three? - commas) were written.

For purposes of application to our current society, would it not make more sense to attempt to understand first what was going on in America in the 1790s? It seems to me that once we are armed with an agreed understanding of the prevailing winds of the day we could have much better insight into what the authors were trying to address with their work. It would also allow us to ascertain the degree to which such conditions were still present today, and in need of addressing.

Do we have an agreed understanding of what they meant by "militia," for instance? What was going on in the late 18th century that caused them to think about having one? And based on that, why did they think it was so important to preserve the right of "the people" to own and bear arms? And which "people" do we think they were referring to, anyway? The police? Farmers?

The Constitution has proved to be one of the most prescient documents ever drafted in the history of humankind. For the most part, its language has proved durable and resilient, in spite of technological and social progress and evolution far beyond the authors' ability to posit. One thing that has changed significantly since 1790 is our place on the world stage. We have evolved from being an upstart, defenseless nation of religious and political dissidents, to the world's lone "superpower." As a thought experiment, consider a fanciful case of society of mice that through some magical transformation grew up to become a society of lions. One could well imagine the society of mice declaring their right to own and bear arms, to protect themselves against their many oppressors both real and imagined. With the magical transformation into lions, however, would not their original fears be completely eliminated?

While this case is obviously fanciful, it does in fact represent what has occurred to our nation. And it is understandable that the people of the day would have had no way of predicting our nation's transformation into its current position at the top of the world. Who'd a thunk it?

Perhaps we should enlist the help of a playwright to draft a stage play about the relevant characters and their conversations on this subject. It would be a period piece, complete with powdered wigs and odd turns of phrase. Yes, I can see it - this is what we need to engage the people in a proper, informed dialogue about one of our nation's most divisive and least understood issues.