“God created men, but Col. Colt made them equal.”

“Be not afraid of any man,

No matter what his size,

When danger threatens, call on me,

And I will equalize.”

One justification for the Second Amendment was brought on by the American Revolution – an armed militia for defense against a tyrannical government. But Redcoats are no longer a credible threa. The United States needs no armed village groups to defend against a Canadian Mountie attack. And if it did, bazookas and anti-tank missiles don’t lend themselves to employment by volunteer militia.

When the Constitution was written, a good hunting rifle was equal or superior to the Brown Bess muskets of the British Hessians. But Brown Besses have been replaced with sophisticated ordnance well beyond anything citizens need, can afford – or could safely use. A militia, in the sense envisioned by the Second amendment, is out of the question.

But there was a second reason for the “Right to Bear Arms” amendment.

It some ways, it was the more important argument, and it resonates today. The right to self-defense is unbridgeable; there is no compromise. The development and expansion of our nation was made possible by the unfettered right of individual settlers, explorers, landowners – citizens – to bear arms. Personal firearms were considered absolutely necessary for the protection of self and property. To those who support the ownership of guns today, this reason is still valid. The armed criminal poses a threat comparable to hostile Indians. Failure to understand and give credit to this concern is a fatal flaw among many who seek to restrict gun ownership

Leaving aside arguments of “rights” in attempting to frame a discussion about the problem of firearms, a couple of fixed parameters are obvious. Like them or lump them, they are here to stay.

First, more than 260,000,000 guns are already in private hands, nearly one for every man, woman and child. Even if the country wished, the only possible way to eliminate them would be to sacrifice another amendment – this time the Fourth, “freedom from unreasonable search and seizure.” Then, how about the cost? These private arms are worth billions of dollars, which would bring into play the Fifth Amendment – “reimbursement for private property taken for public use”.

The short of it is that private guns are here to stay. Good or bad, America will have them as long as people vote. However, reasonable people can agree that it is in the public interest to place some restrictions on them.

Today, the signers of the Constitution would surely proffer profoundly different opinions on many constitutional questions, especially on subsequent judicial interpretations. It is quite unlikely, for example, that the men who wrote the 10th Amendment would permit political appointees in Washington to deny states the right to control automobile emissions within their own borders. Along these lines, it is not far fetched to say the founders would not believe AK-47s in bedrooms are in the public interest. Nor, does it seem likely that they would approve the plethora of automatic weapons available for no restriction, on-the-spot purchase at every corner gun store or gun show.

Therefore, even though America cannot eliminate guns – nor is it a slam dunk that the country would even want to – reasonable people should be able to agree that absolute, unconstrained gun ownership by everyone capable of holding and shooting one should not be tolerated.

There must be a common ground that judicious, fair-minded men and women can find.

Rodney Quinn, who lives in Gorham, is a former Maine attorney general. He can be reached at [email protected]. His book, “Gorham During the Great Depression,” can be purchased at the Baxter Memorial Library. Proceeds benefit the library.

“