An interpretation of the Second Amendment

I've been knocking around a not at all serious legal argument in my head for a couple of weeks now. In the aftermath of the Sandy Hook massacre, I've been trying to think of a way to counter those who misunderstand the Second Amendment, while still playing by the conservative's rules. What I've come up with is an appeal to constitutional originalism; a legal theory -- most notably espoused by Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia -- that dictates that we must determine exactly what the framers of the Constitution originally meant when they wrote an article or amendment. Once we've pulled off this feat of archaeological mindreading, we can then go ahead declare modern law constitutional or unconstitutional.

But in the case of the Second Amendment, no mindreading is necessary. We take the conservative interpretation of the amendment, mix in some history and logic, and we get exactly what the founders must've intended. All we have to do is define "arms" the way they did. Therefore, "the right to keep and bear arms" should mean -- as the signers of the Constitution undoubtedly intended -- the right to muzzleloading single shot firearms, bows, bayonets, and sabres. Have as many of these as you want. Knock yourself out.

And it's really not that far away from current reality. We already define what the Constitution means by "arms." I can't own nuclear arms or other WMD. If I did, Homeland Security would probably treat me to an all-expense-paid trip to beautiful, tropical Guantanamo Bay. The Constitution doesn't specifically ban these things, but they're illegal just the same and conservatives aren't clamoring for their "right" to own WMD to be recognized. So we see that "arms" means whatever the hell we want it to mean -- unless we take into account how the framers would've defined the word.

As solid as this logic is, it would never fly in Washington. Mainly, I had hoped to point out the absurdity of conservative thought and how one deeply-held wingnut belief often contradicts another deeply-held wingnut belief. Originalism does not back an unlimited right to own any firearm you want. Consistency in reasoning is not the Republican's friend.

Still, there's a rational argument in here: we've already defined "arms" the way we want to. Why can't we just keep doing that? What's wrong with applying logic in gun policy, just this once?

[image source]