the Second Amendment for Copperude. In one part of his.
written reply, Copperude said "The right to keep and.
bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire.
sentence." (2) (The entire amendment is contained in.
one sentence: "A well-regulated Militia, being.
necessary for the security of a free State, the right.
of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be.
infringed.") (Larson 153) Copperude also said that.
there were no changes in the English language that.
would much affect the meaning. (Schulman 2) The entire.
discourse was adroitly summed up by Schulman: ".the.
Constitution of the United States unconditionally.
protects the people's right to keep and bear arms,.
forbidding all governments formed under the.
Constitution from abridging that right.". (3) It seems.
that the founding fathers meant what they said. Even.
ACLU lawyer and political theorist Sanford Levinson.
admitted, although commenting on a different.
amendment, that "Indeed, the major debates. arise.
precisely when one tries to discern a purpose, given.
that "literalism" is a hopelessly failing approach to.
interpreting it." (3) In other words, if you take an.
amendment for what it says (literalism), then you have.
clarity of expression (but you might not like it). If,.
however, you try to make it mean something else you.
then have problems in interpretation (although you.
would then be able to make it say what you want). .
If that is what the framers meant then why is there.
still an issue? Well, it goes like this: if everybody.
is toting around a gun on their belt then more people.
are going to be killed, right? We already tried that.
once, and we got the wild west. Since the amendment is.
clear, and there are many zealous defenders of it,.
maybe we should just infringe on the rights thereby.
granted. Oh, and here is where it gets good. A.
textbook example of modern problem-solving! Somebody.
got the bright idea that, since we can't abolish guns.
(though that is what many want to do), they would just.
