OPINION: What is the scope of the Second Amendment?

Just typing the above headline feels like holding a metal golf club up during a terrible thunderstorm and asking for the lightning to come my way.

Of course, any discussion of the Second Amendment must begin with the language itself: “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.”

That sentence would be pretty difficult to diagram in English class given its somewhat unusual construction. But grammar isn’t the issue for the nation. Instead, we fight over the meaning of that sentence. What did the founders intend? How does that perceived intent apply now?

Naturally, all of today’s Second Amendment debates are tied to guns, which dominate our news and are everywhere in our society. In reading the Second Amendment, we basically substitute “arms” with “guns,” but there is actually no mention of “guns” in the amendment. The amendment simply says “arms,” which could be interpreted specifically “firearms” or as the broader “armaments” — general weaponry.

So, if it’s a matter of interpretation of the word, couldn’t “arms” entail swords, hammers, knives on the small side of the spectrum — then we have guns in the middle — and on the far end of the weaponry spectrum we have biological and nuclear arms, along with a vast array of new technologies, including laser and drone warfare?

Perhaps the scope of the Second Amendment, in today’s world, is much greater than the debate over single-shot versus automatic firearms. In a broader sense, doesn’t the amendment deal with the individual’s right to weaponry vs. his potential restriction of weaponry? The amendment itself hints at both, rights and restrictions, doesn’t it? It refers to the “right of the people to keep and bear arms.” It also refers to a “well regulated” militia. So, we’re left to interpret what “militia” means in current terms. Likewise, what does “well regulated” mean, as stated in the Constitution?

Many aim to be Constitutional purists on the matter, but legitimate questions can be raised about what is actually pure in the language, since the words hold ambiguity.

But on top of that, the true monkey wrench in any Constitutional debate over the Second Amendment is the advancement of technology.

Obviously, the framers of the Constitution couldn’t conceive of nuclear weapons or drone warfare — or AR 15s for that matter — when drafting the documents. The Second Amendment does not offer clarification on which new technologies will and won’t be constitutionally protected for the individual. For instance, the “right to bear arms” says nothing of aerosol anthrax, which falls under the broad umbrella of “arms.”

Thankfully, our society has deemed such a weapon as not constitutionally protected. But the point being, the government intervenes regularly in weaponry matters, determining that pipe bombs, biological weapons, nuclear weapons, etc. are off limits for individuals.

Generally, people don’t seem too bothered by restrictions on such mass killing devices. But a Constitutional purist could make a case that the Second Amendment is broader in scope than just firearms and protects an individual’s right to “bear arms,” any arms, that the government maintains, since the founders saw the overthrow of a tyrannical government as a potential necessity. The debate centers on “assault rifles” in that regard, but if our founders envisioned citizen overthrow of government, why stop at rapid-fire weaponry? Why not view the Second Amendment in its broader scope, allowing individual ownership of high-volume explosives and nastier weapons of mass destruction? In essence, where is the line appropriately drawn on “arms?” And do we abandon the notion of government establishing any such lines regarding individual weaponry?

Politically, it’s all about guns, but Constitutionally, isn’t it about much more? Isn’t it a matter of where we set values regarding public safety versus individual empowerment? Having utterly no restrictions would be a thumbs up to aeresol ebola, to homemade nukes, to pipe bombs. Having utterly too much restriction would take the scissors from your hands. It’s a cutting instrument.

No doubt, talk of guns and you touch on deep emotion. To hold a gun is to feel a certain power unlike any other. It feels like a temporary dominion over death. You recognize the power to save your own life or that of a loved one by taking another. You have the power to secure food for yourself and your family. Many families feel a deep kinship over hunting and love of guns. And that can be a deep emotional tie. A gun can offer an individual a feeling of security that no other machinery brings. Many interpret any government restriction on firearms as a form of robbery of this personal power — and deep personal history.

Likewise, the emotions are just as great on the other side. The darkness is real too. You or a loved one can be shot dead at any time by some crazed person. You can pull the gun but be outdrawn. You can see a family dispute turn fatal. Such tragedies are everywhere. And many see a lack of restrictions on mass killing weaponry — whether it’s a biological weapon or an assault rifle — as a lack of respect for human life and decency.

All of this brings us back to our old battleground, the Second Amendment. Ultimately, when we argue about the Second Amendment, we each apply our own values to our own interpretations of what we each feel the language should mean in our own lives.

Hopefully we can all recognize the need for reasonable debate — while leaving our actual guns unfired.

Zach Mitcham is editor of The Madison County Journal.