Woke up this morning... got yourself a gun.

I read this article in the NY Times today regarding the gun control debate, which opened with this simple fact:

"In March, for the first time in the nation’s history, a federal appeals court struck down a gun control law on Second Amendment grounds."

That's right. The Second Amendment. Which reads:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Once upon a time, legal scholars agreed the Second Amendment referred to militas, not individuals. Then, others argued the phrase "bear arms" appeared in many legal writings as referring to individuals. Now, apparently, there's a movement of legal law scholars (the NY Times feels compelled to label them as liberals in the article) who argue:

"If only as a matter of consistency, Professor Levinson continued, liberals who favor expansive interpretations of other amendments in the Bill of Rights, like those protecting free speech and the rights of criminal defendants, should also embrace a broad reading of the Second Amendment."

So, there's two interesting points here. 1) The NY Times feels compelled to identify that liberal legal law scholars find this statement accurate, even if it's not the majority view. 2) This view, labeled the "individual rights view," basically states that "Well, if it's OK to liberally interpret the rest of the Constitution, then why not the Second Amendment as well?"

The former's just stirring the point. The latter is fascinating. As a matter of course, one should decide for themselves their own political beliefs based on the system. So, if you're for or against gun control, so be it. You should be allowed to think.

However, that this might happen:

"Laurence H. Tribe, a law professor at Harvard, said he had come to believe that the Second Amendment protected an individual right.

“My conclusion came as something of a surprise to me, and an unwelcome surprise,” Professor Tribe said. “I have always supported as a matter of policy very comprehensive gun control.”

The idea, "Well, I know what I think, but the laws don't back me up" seems, well, crazy. Not a "This guy wants to be a gun-toting maniac in a Church steeple" crazy, but a "This might serve as a genuine legal argument or just an attention grabber for me" crazy. It's kinda feels like the latter, a gun control devil's advocate position of sorts. Nice to see legitimate thought going into the argument, though. It's been a while.

Can Superman just collect all the guns in the world and throw them into the Sun already?