Thoughts on Gun Control/The Constitution

I'd like to make one thing perfectly clear: I am a firm believer in the virtues of restricted gun control. I do not see that there is a necessity for guns in any avenue of civilian life. There are a few distinct reasons that staunch supporters of the 2nd amendment cite whenever a conversation about gun control comes up.

1) The right to bear arms is outlined quite clearly in the Constitution.
This one is big. This argument is taken by every conceivable demographic, including those who in most other circumstances would declare such a literal, narrow-minded, and antiquated interpretation of the Constitution to be fundamentally insane. To see such people turn a blind eye to the blatant discrepancies that exist as a result of (and largely compounded by), in such a restricted view of the Constitution is not only disappointing, but also frightening.

My view: The Constitution was written in 1787 (Wikipedia corrected my earlier assumption of 1781), during a time of tremendous political and social change. The actions of our founding fathers were heroic when taken into the context of the world they lived in. However, we cannot possibly hope to plug their decisions and views into our modern America without some degree of incompatibility. And yes, these were the views and opinions of a select few individuals, not the wishes of the country as a whole. The Constitution was written during a time before telegraph or telephone or the internet. These select few people did not represent constituents in any dramatic or romantically traditional sense. Instead, many of these people were business men or politicians that relied heavily upon tied business to stay in power. This is a facet of government that has not changed. The firearm industry was very large int he economically powerful region of New England. Without the continued support of such a large industry, who is to say how much actual power the fledgling American government would have wielded. In light of this, how can we possibly hope to taken the Constitution and apply with literal force the things outlined in it.

"Flexibility" has become in the world of conservative politics almost a swear word. "Flexibility" is seen as the weak alternative to a strong and strict operating procedure. "Flexibility" is seen as the undermining force in the quest for a more stable and morally secure America. However, it seems to me as if a flexible interpretation of the Constitution would be the more challenging and ultimately rewarding route. A flexible interpretation of the Constitution would challenge American politicians to find the better alternative instead of relying upon a set of antiquated guidelines. It would challenge American politicians to find a way to fit American policy (which is still bloated and weighed down by a Cold War mentality) into an increasingly efficient and globalized international community.

This post started out about gun control, and I still aim to outline my concerns on the matter in a future post. However, gun control (among a few other topics) inevitably leads me to the same conclusion: there are a few extremely profound deficiencies in not only the manner in which the American government conducts itself, but also in the mentality that surrounds the seemingly accepted interpretation of the Constitution by many conservatives. And although I'm well aware that many people have voiced similar concerns in forums much more visible than this and in a vernacular much more eloquent, I can't help but feel as if its my civic duty to express these concerns as my own as well.