There has been a lot of rehashed discussion about gun control in light of the recent school massacre. My libertarian philosophy leans toward less power in the hands of Government, which puts more power in the hands of individuals, but we need a strong military, and we don't need unstable individuals with the power to kill large numbers of innocent people.
However, as recently confirmed by the US Supreme Court (Solum, 2009), one of the original purposes for the second amendment was to insure that citizens could take a stand against an out-of-control Government. It is difficult to imagine how that could work today with modern military capability.
Science Fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke said it is not the power of weaponry that makes military might effective. It is the precision of weaponry that wins wars. (Clarke, 1953)
Clarke illustrated his idea with a story about an alien invasion that depended on mosquito-like devices that gently distracted and influenced humans into submission to their alien overlords. The power of the aliens was in their ability to precisely direct the smallest intervention at the most opportune moments. (Clarke, 1953)
Maybe the answer to the gun control issue is to focus on precision in the development of weaponry used by the Government, and to focus on effective use of weapons (including training) rather than the development of ever-more-powerful weapons. I think we could meet our military objectives more effectively by focusing on greater precision and less destruction. In recent conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, we have demonstrated that "shock and awe" can be accomplished with ultrasonic weapons that do minimal permanent damage to the enemy. (Leventhall, 2005)
Make weapons that are more precise and less lethal, and we won't have to argue over the meaning of the second amendment.
References:
Clarke, A. C. (1953). Childhood's End. Del Rey Books. ISBN 0-345-34795-1.
Leventhall, G. (2005-10-01). Big noise in baghdad. Noise Notes, 4(4), 11-14. doi: 10.1260/147547306777009238
Solum, L. B. (2009). District of columbia v. heller and originalism. Northwestern University Law Review,103(2), 924-957. Retrieved from http://www.law.northwestern.edu/lawreview/v103/n2/923/LR103n2Solum.pdf
