Second amendment in much need of retooling

In the wake of the tragedy of San Bernardino, the Supreme Court refused to hear a second amendment challenge to Highland Park’s Ban on semi-automatic weapons and large capacity magazines. Justices Scalia and Thomas called this an abdication of the Supreme Court’s duty to enforce the second amendment. One question, why do we have to? Scalia’s cut and dry originalism puts a tad too much emphasis on 27 words crafted in the late 1700s. People often wonder and reminisce about what it might be like to rock with the grunge bands of the 1990s? Or protest with the counter-culture hippies of the 60s,? Or maybe even hit a speak easy or two during the roaring 1920s? Yet, have you ever head anyone yearn to live in the pre/post-revolutionary war era? The majority of people lived in crude mudbrick or log houses, had tattered un-protective clothing, and depended on the labor of 14 children to sow their lands so that they might avoid starvation, live until the ripe old age of 40, and then die of tuberculosis. Compared to today, this era was medieval. The most common weapon, a musket, took a couple minutes to load and were hardly accurate up to 50 yards. These were the “arms” that the founding fathers were talking about in the constitution. James Madison could not have had any idea that eventually there would be widespread availability and affordability to weapons that can fire 800 rounds a minute, such as the AR-15. Now, here’s where I really find myself at a quandary. 800 rounds a minute sounds like a clay pigeon, beer can, or gopher’s worst nightmare, and the most pure fun an American boy could have. The problem is assault rifles were meant for killing. Period. There are too many gun related deaths in the US every year for this issue to be ignored much longer. Disregard the stratified mass shootings. These are simply used as focusing events and media ploys, they only distract from actual issues. According to the Small Arms Survey, the US is highest in guns per capita (88 guns for every 100 people) and has the highest per capita rate of firearm-related murders of any developed country (9,960 in 2010). Citizens own roughly 270,000,000 guns for purposes for home protection to recreational shooting. “State militias” (as understood in 1791) have been irrelevant for some time now, and “arms” have evolved so drastically that it is irresponsible to apply this amendment to modern-day situations. Hold on now, though. The right to “bear arms” (carry a gun) should not be abolished. The most fun I have ever had while shooting, was deep in the woods of Montana with a 48” single-barrel 12-gauge shot gun. It kicked like hell and left bruises on both shoulders, but it kept me from firing recklessly or excessively. The simple act of forced reloading taught me to respect each shot, and the ensuing consequences. I am not saying that only one-shot guns should be allowed. But, I think there is a loss of respect and appreciation for the power of the tool when you can light up a field like its Call of Duty. A gun is a deadly weapon, even when only used for recreation, and should be treated as such. The Supreme Court did not give any reason, nor did that act under precedent, when they refused to hear the Highland Park case. The logic that has been relied upon in recent years is becoming less and less applicable. Slowly, we are inching towards a new precedent. One that brings this amendment into the future, while still allowing the American traditions that so many people enjoy.