Listen to this article

“A well-regulated militia …” is a conveniently ignored precursor — because of its restrictive implication — by those who assert that owning weapons of war and accessories are unquestionably protected by the Second Amendment.

To those who argue prohibitions on same are inherently precluded by the Constitution, common sense (and the common good) will respond: 1: Acquiesced restrictions on individually operated weaponry already exist. 2: The Constitution was written in our vulnerable infancy as a nation-state and when we had a frontier, bereft of the timely aid of a potent standing army. 3: Our forefathers, while thoughtful and wise, were not miraculously prescient in foreseeing that technology would someday render a citizenry’s armed disposal so vastly inferior to, and grossly negated by, that of an institutional army as exists today. 4: At the same time, they could not know that, years hence, such “advancements” would yet have made possible the infliction of a massacre, within seconds, by any lone individual. 5: The constitutional issue is intent, and the overriding reasonable intent of our authors was the fostering of a peaceful society maintained by representative government and rule of law … a right we relatively realize in the present save for the growing incidences of massacre by individuals and cancer of anti-American paramilitary groups whose nefarious potential is multiplied by access to offensively-oriented weapons.

We can mitigate the severity, and even deter the initiation, of mass casualties by prohibiting the circulation of superfluous weaponry without impeding either the right to hunting or self-defense.