Interpreting Away the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Frankly, it seems to us that the interpretation of the Second Amendment which asserts that it guarantees only the right of state militias to be armed is ridiculous on its face. What, as opposed to unarmed militias?!

The great contribution which our Founding Fathers made to the history of civilization was in establishing once and for all the principle that the government serves the people and not vice versa. We The People are the ones who should hold the keys to the store, so to speak.

And since in government we are talking about political power - which is always backed up by force in every government, always has been - then it is also We The People, and not the government alone, who should hold the power to enforce and protect. It's that simple.

It is not, and must not be, a question of whether the government trusts its own people. Quite the contrary: it's a question of how far we can trust individuals in our government in the long run - power tending, as it does, to corrupt.

Firearms in the Hands of Governments. The level of harm to members of the populace that goes hand in hand with the private ownership of firearms is indeed serious, and it merits serious attention and action - but it is nothing compared with the level of harm that governments have inflicted on their own and surrounding populations when the citizenry they were supposed to be serving was disarmed and helpless to oppose.  There's just no comparison. And it is to this much, much greater level of harm - orders of magnitude greater - that we open the door when we allow ourselves to be persuaded that the government cannot trust its citizens with firearms, the ultimate underpinning of political power.

Anyone who thinks "this couldn't happen here" (meaning the United States) has been safe so long that a part of them has fallen asleep. This is the richest and most powerful country in history at the peak of its global power. Why on earth would anyone want to assume that getting at the controls wouldn't be attractive to the corrupt and the power-hungry?!

Accountability and Regulation - Not Removal. Do individuals commit mayhem with firearms? Sadly, yes, sometimes. Does this mean firearms ought to be taken away from all citizens in response? We say: of course not! The people who use firearms in unlawful ways should be held to account for their actions. What this has to do with the many others who are law-abiding citizens and also happen to own firearms is beyond us.

There are many thousands of incidents each year involving serious injury or loss of life due to negligent and illegal operation of automobiles. Should we therefore take cars away from everyone? Of course not!

Many of the automobile accidents involve intoxicated persons. Should we therefore take alcohol away from everyone who owns an automobile? Of course not!

What we do instead is to make it clear that the individual rights to such things as automotive transportation, recreational alcohol use etc. go hand in hand with a requirement that these rights be exercised responsibly. Individuals failing to act responsibly stand to lose their individual enjoyment of these rights.

So why would it be appropriate to take guns away from everyone? We feel that the difference between these three problem/solution scenarios is not that one merits outright removal and the others do not, but rather that - for many people who drive automobiles and enjoy a drink now and again but don't happen to have any interest in owning guns - they're vigilant about protecting their rights to do what they do, but don't care about protecting those rights in which they don't feel a direct personal interest. That's unfair, irresponsible and short-sighted.

Scorched-Earth Tactics. We certainly don't hold with everyone on the right-to-keep-and-bear-arms side of the dispute. Some of the positions on that side of the line seem extreme and intractable to us. But we can understand why pro-gun organizations such as the National Rifle Association don't want to be drawn into discussions about regulating the ownership and use of firearms, when the forces arrayed against them still contain significant elements bent on the complete disarming of the civilian populace.

If the right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms could be as unassailable an individual right as the right to free speech and assembly, or as protections against self-incrimination and double jeopardy, then we could see the two sides sitting down to find the sensible middle ground. But as long as that right is not understood to be a basic right of a free citizenry, it looks like this dispute will remain the  ridiculous and extreme tug-of-war it has been for years.