I agree that it is "wise to review documents like the Constitution... and see if conditions have changed" and amend them if they have changed. One problem with the gun control debate in the U.S. is that gun control advocates, in general, are not making a real effort to amend the Constitution.

One of the really serious problems in human life, Little Hawk, is that people refuse to deal with what very old documents actually say. Often they treat plain statements as if they were not plain.

The Second Amendment can be rejected. It can be ignored. It can be amended away. It may be outmoded. It may be absurd. It may be obsolete. Anyone who wishes may speak out against it. But, please, let's not act as if one side of the debate consists of those who take it "literally" and the other side consists of enlightened souls who do not. That is not the issue. What the amendment says is plain enough. The question is what to do about it.

Kent