A recent piece discusses some calls to amend the Second Amendment, specifically those from former SCOTUS Justice John Paul Stevens. He advocates changing some words so that in order to posess firearms, one would have to be currently serving in the military. The author discusses the reasoning behind Stevens advocacy, but also points out that it would go nowhere fast:
As a practical matter, the Stevens amendment of the Second Amendment is DOA in any discussion of gun policy in the foreseeable future.
I found the closing paragraph interesting:
For a significant minority of Americans, firearms represent individualism, independence, and self-reliance. In the eyes of citizens who connect these values to gun ownership, membership in a militia—whatever that would mean in the modern context—isn’t a necessary part of the equation. Amending the Constitution, and that includes amending an amendment, is a political undertaking that has to reflect the will of “we the people.” These days, an awful lot of those people, the vast majority of whom obey the law and pay their taxes, like their guns and intend to keep them.
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/20 ... gn_id=yhoo
