The Myth of Second Amendment Absolutism: Rights, Limits, and a Balanced Approach
Why Gun Rights, Like All Rights, Are Subject to Reasonable Limits
America’s gun debate has increasingly been framed by Second Amendment absolutism—the belief that any regulation of firearms is unconstitutional—that the Amendment mandates that the right to keep and bear arms “shall not be infringed” and allows no exceptions. Some elected officials have openly endorsed this extreme interpretation, insisting that gun rights are sacred and untouchable, even in the face of mass shootings in American schools, churches, bars, and even public events and festivities.
We argue that this absolutist narrative ignores a crucial reality that no constitutional right in American history, including the Second Amendment, has ever been absolute. Since the Founders’ time, rights have been balanced with responsibilities and reasonable restrictions. An absolutist view of the Second Amendment contradicts longstanding legal tradition, what the Supreme Court has said, and what most Americans believe. In this in-depth analysis, we examine the absolutist rhetoric of some politicians, the historical and legal context that refutes it, key Supreme Court rulings (and what the Justices said about gun rights and limits), a troubling case of judicial extremism in a recent gun-related dissent, and polling data that reveal Americans’ broad support for gun rights with commonsense regulations. The evidence shows that protecting Second Amendment rights and enacting reasonable gun safety measures are not mutually exclusive goals but complementary ones in a functioning society.
Politicians Embracing a “No Compromise” Second Amendment
Several political figures today champion an uncompromising view of the Second Amendment. For example, Rep. Lauren Boebert, a Republican from Colorado, has flatly declared, “The Second Amendment is absolute. Anyone who says otherwise is a tyrant.” Boebert’s statement was delivered via Twitter in April 2021 as a response to proposed gun-control measures, and it encapsulates the absolutist idea that any law restricting guns is illegitimate. She has since repeatedly positioned herself as a “Second Amendment fundamentalist,” even introducing the Shall Not Be Infringed Act in Congress to roll back firearm regulations. In Boebert’s view, the Constitution’s language brooks no nuance – gun rights trump all other considerations, and those who suggest otherwise are cast as threats to freedom.
Similarly, Senator Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma has emphatically voiced a no-compromise stance on gun rights. Upon introducing a recent bill to block a federal firearms registry, Mullin stated, “The Constitution is crystal clear. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. End of story.”  Such words—“end of story”—underline an absolutist interpretation that refuses to acknowledge any permissible gun regulation whatsoever. Senator Mullin and like-minded legislators argue that phrases like “shall not be infringed” mean even widely supported measures—background checks, licensing requirements, limits on military-grade weaponry, etc.—are unconstitutional. Their hardline position rejects the notion of balancing gun rights with public safety; to the absolutists, any government action touching firearms is an unacceptable infringement. It’s a viewpoint that plays well in soundbites and social media posts, rallying a base that fears a “slippery slope” of gun control. But is their view supported by history and law? To answer that, we look at how constitutional rights have functioned in America – and what the Second Amendment’s legal record shows.
Constitutional Rights Have Always Had Limits in the Name of Public Safety
Absolutist slogans like “shall not be infringed – end of story” make for strong rhetoric, but they crumble against the weight of constitutional history. No right in the Constitution has ever been interpreted as unlimited – not the First Amendment’s freedom of speech, not the Fourth Amendment’s protections against search and seizure, and not the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms. From the nation’s founding onward, Americans have recognized that liberties are not absolute licenses; they exist in a social context where one person’s unfettered freedom can infringe on another’s rights or safety. Thus, reasonable restrictions have long been viewed as compatible with constitutional rights, balancing individual liberty and the common good.
Take the First Amendment. It declares, “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech,” yet no one seriously argues that it protects all speech in all circumstances. Laws relating to slander, perjury, and incitement of violence have been upheld for centuries. You cannot legally threaten someone or shout fire in a crowded theater and then claim free speech immunity – society has always drawn lines when speech directly harms others. The same goes for freedom of religion (the government can intervene, for example, in religious practices that violate public health or safety laws, such as human sacrifice or polygamy, despite the First Amendment) and freedom of assembly (permits and time-place-manner rules are constitutional). Even the Fourth Amendment, which safeguards personal privacy against unreasonable searches, allows police to act on probable cause or exigent circumstances. Rights coexist with law and order; public safety and welfare considerations temper them. The Constitution’s framers and generations of jurists never viewed the Bill of Rights as an all-bets-are-off charter of anarchy.
Crucially, the Second Amendment itself has a long tradition of regulation. Historical records from the 18th and 19th centuries show that American communities did impose gun regulations consistent with public safety – for instance, laws against firing weapons in populated areas or carrying arms in specific public gatherings were not uncommon. The phrase “well-regulated Militia” in the Second Amendment’s prefatory clause reflects that the Founders understood the importance of order and governance in the realm of arms. And when we turn to modern jurisprudence, we find that the Supreme Court has explicitly affirmed that the right to bear arms is not unlimited. In the landmark 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller, Justice Antonin Scalia – hardly a liberal on gun issues – wrote for the majority: “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” In the same passage, the Court provided examples of longstanding limits that are presumptively lawful: laws barring felons or the mentally ill from owning guns, bans on carrying firearms in “sensitive places” like schools or government buildings, and regulations on commercial sale of firearms. Even the highest court – in a case that greatly expanded gun rights – took pains to stress that the Second Amendment, like its sister amendments, accommodates common-sense restrictions.
The absolutist view does not square with this reality. The need for security and order has always balanced the Constitution’s promise of liberty. Rights exist in a framework that ensures one person’s freedoms do not impede another’s. As Justice Scalia’s opinion recognized, the Second Amendment “is not a right to keep and carry any weapon in any manner for any purpose.” An individual can have a right to bear arms for self-defense. At the same time, society can still forbid (for example) bringing loaded guns into a courthouse or denying guns to convicted violent felons. These concepts are not in conflict; they are the fabric of constitutional law. By refusing to acknowledge any boundary, absolutism actually departs from the conservative tradition of interpreting rights in context. Ironically, some who claim to defend the Founders’ vision of the Second Amendment are espousing an ahistorical, radical version that the Founders themselves would not recognize.
What the Supreme Court Says: Heller, McDonald, and Bruen
If Second Amendment absolutists were correct, one would expect the Supreme Court’s Second Amendment rulings to support their view. In reality, the opposite is true. The Court’s key decisions – District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), McDonald v. Chicago (2010), and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022) – affirm an individual right to gun ownership, while also underscoring that this right, like others, has limits. Far from handing down a blank check to invalidate all gun laws, the Justices (including the Court’s conservative members) have repeatedly acknowledged the legitimacy of specific regulations.
Heller was the watershed case in which the Supreme Court, for the first time, definitively held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms, at least for self-defense in the home. Justice Scalia’s majority opinion struck down Washington D.C.’s handgun ban as too extreme, affirming that law-abiding citizens have a right to keep commonly used firearms (like handguns) for personal protection. However, as noted above, Scalia reassured that the Second Amendment is “not unlimited” and that nothing in the ruling should cast doubt on long-accepted gun regulations. The Court even cited examples (felon-in-possession laws, bans on carrying in schools or government buildings, etc.) as presumptively lawful measures. Heller thus defined a right but also outlined its boundaries: handguns in the home for self-defense are protected, but a wide array of other gun control measures can be constitutional. Notably, Heller also referenced the historical tradition of banning “dangerous and unusual weapons,” implying that extremely lethal arms not in common civilian use (think tanks, machine guns, and other military hardware) can be restricted. Heller was a landmark win for gun rights, but it explicitly rejected the idea that the Second Amendment disables all gun regulation.
Two years after Heller, the Court in McDonald v. City of Chicago extended (or “incorporated”) the Second Amendment protections recognized in Heller to apply against state and local governments through the Fourteenth Amendment. Writing for the plurality, Justice Samuel Alito struck down Chicago’s handgun ban, making it clear that states and cities, like the federal government, cannot flatly prohibit law-abiding citizens from owning handguns for self-defense. In doing so, the Court treated the right to keep and bear arms as a “fundamental” right necessary to our system of ordered liberty, warranting the same respect as other Bill of Rights guarantees. However, nothing in McDonald negated Heller’s assurances about permissible regulations. Justice Alito reiterated Heller’s list of examples of acceptable gun laws, reinforcing that incorporation of the Second Amendment did not wipe out the states’ ability to enforce reasonable restrictions. The McDonald ruling was about who must respect the Second Amendment (all levels of government), not about invalidating every specific gun law on the books. Indeed, Chicago’s ban was struck down for being nearly absolute; more modest regulations were left intact.
In New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the Supreme Court’s decision is the most significant Second Amendment case since Heller and McDonald. The Court’s 6-3 conservative majority (opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas) struck down New York’s restrictive licensing system for carrying handguns in public. New York had required citizens to show “proper cause” (a special need beyond general self-defense) to get a permit to carry concealed firearms. The Court found the law violated the Second Amendment, recognizing a constitutional right to carry handguns publicly for self-defense. Notably, Justice Thomas announced a new test for evaluating gun laws: courts must look to the historical tradition of regulation – if a modern gun restriction has an analog in history (especially around the founding era), it’s likely okay; if not, it may be unconstitutional. Thomas’ history-focused test did away with the prior two-step approach many lower courts used (which considered the law’s burden and used means-ends scrutiny). While Bruen tightened the standard (leading to numerous challenges of gun laws), it did not hold that all gun regulations fail. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, wrote an explicit concurring opinion in Bruen to underline the continuity from Heller. Kavanaugh quoted Heller’s statement that the Second Amendment is “neither a regulatory straitjacket nor a regulatory blank check” – in other words, it doesn’t mean no regulation is allowed, nor does it permit all rules. He reiterated verbatim Heller’s list of examples of permissible gun laws (felon bans, sensitive place restrictions, etc.), emphasizing that Bruen did not disturb those precedents. Kavanaugh and Robert’s concurrence signals that the Court’s ruling shouldn’t be read as an absolutist manifesto. Bruen protects the right to carry in public and shifts how courts analyze gun laws, but it does not strip governments of the power to enact gun safety measures that have deep historical roots or analogs. For instance, laws banning guns in sensitive places (like airports or schools) or preventing dangerous individuals from obtaining weapons likely pass muster if they fit within historical traditions acknowledged by the Court.
The bottom line from the Supreme Court is that the Second Amendment confers an important individual right – but one that can coexist with reasonable regulations. Justice Scalia in Heller affirmed the right and its limits in the same breath. Justice Alito in McDonald underscored that incorporation doesn’t nullify all gun laws. While expanding the scope of the right in Bruen, Justice Thomas did not claim it is absolute, and Justices Kavanaugh and Roberts took pains to say so explicitly. Even Justice Amy Coney Barrett, in a short concurrence in Bruen, noted there might be nuances in how the historical test is applied – indicating open questions on how to handle modern regulations not present in 1791. In all these recent rulings, the Court has never endorsed the notion that the Second Amendment wipes out every gun regulation. On the contrary, there is a thorough-line recognition that constitutional rights must be interpreted in light of history and tradition, which include both the right and restrictions on the right.
None of this is to say the Court welcomes all gun control outright bans on commonly owned guns or schemes that give officials broad discretion to deny carry permits have been struck down. But the absolutist claim that “any gun law equals tyranny” is not supported by Supreme Court jurisprudence. Even our most conservative justices accept that a “variety” of gun regulations are compatible with the Second Amendment. The absolutists have effectively constructed a straw man – a version of the Second Amendment that no court in the United States has ever adopted. In doing so, the absolutists ignore historical practice and the very words of the jurists they often claim to revere.
A Judge’s Extreme Video Dissent Raises Ethics Concerns
The dangers of Second Amendment absolutism aren’t confined to legislatures or campaigns; they have even seeped into the judiciary in unsettling ways. A vivid example came earlier today when Judge Lawrence VanDyke of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an unprecedented video dissent in a gun-rights case (Duncan v. Bonta) – complete with handguns as props in chambers – in objection to the majority’s ruling. Judge VanDyke’s actions shocked many in the legal community and provoked a sharp rebuke from his colleagues, raising serious questions about judicial ethics and the proper role of judges in highly charged constitutional debates.
In Duncan v. Bonta, an en banc Ninth Circuit upheld California’s law banning large-capacity magazines (those holding over 10 rounds), finding that the ban was consistent with historical traditions of firearm regulation. Judge VanDyke – a staunch Second Amendment advocate appointed by President Trump – vehemently disagreed. But rather than limit himself to a written dissenting opinion, the traditional medium for judges to express disagreement, VanDyke did something virtually unheard of: he recorded an 18-minute YouTube video of himself in his chambers, handling multiple firearms and lecturing about how magazines work, in an attempt to demonstrate why he thought the majority’s reasoning was wrong. He gave a visual, hands-on presentation – part gun tutorial, part legal argument – and embedded the video link in his written dissent.
The content of Judge VanDyke’s dissent was as provocative as the format. In his opinion and video, he accused the majority of engaging in “factual and legal fantasy,” at one point mockingly suggesting that under their logic, all firearm parts could be deemed mere “accessories” beyond Second Amendment protection. To “prove” his point, VanDyke’s video shows him disassembling handguns, pointing out components, and arguing that a magazine is an integral part of a firearm, not a separate accessory – thus, banning magazines over 10 rounds is, in his view, tantamount to banning functional firearms. Within his own case, this judge was effectively testifying as a firearms expert. The spectacle was astonishing: a federal appellate judge brandishing his personal weapons on camera to make an argument about a gun rights case.
Thus far, reactions have been swift – and not kind. Senior Judge Marsha Berzon, one of VanDyke’s Ninth Circuit colleagues, penned a concurring opinion to call his video dissent “wildly improper.” She noted that no party to the case had the chance to review or rebut the information in the video, meaning VanDyke was introducing evidence outside the trial record – a fundamental breach of appellate procedure. She wrote that by filming himself explaining technical facts, VanDyke “casts himself in the role of an expert witness,” blurring the line between the neutral judge and advocate. Judge Berzon warned that if such antics were tolerated, nothing would stop a future majority from using videos or external evidence to bolster its rulings – a prospect she found alarming. In her view (shared by many observers), Judge VanDyke’s novel approach undermines the integrity of the court’s process. Judges are supposed to decide cases based on the evidence and arguments presented by the parties, not create and introduce their own evidence. By essentially doing the latter, VanDyke violated a core judicial norm.
Legal ethics experts echoed these concerns. The Code of Conduct for United States Judges provides that judges should avoid actual impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities. Canon 3 of the Code instructs that a judge should perform duties impartially and not comment publicly on pending cases except through official channels (i.e., opinions). Judge VanDyke’s YouTube dissent – a public broadcast outside the written judicial opinion – sits uncomfortably with that principle. While he might argue the video was part of his official dissent, it’s an unusual extrajudicial flourish that his court rules did not authorize (the Ninth Circuit’s general orders do not contemplate video opinions). By stepping into a quasi-advocate role, complete with visual aids and emotionally charged rhetoric, VanDyke arguably lent the prestige of his office to advance a personal or political agenda – raising questions under Canon 2 about eroding public confidence in judicial impartiality.
Even apart from the Code’s specifics, there’s a broader breach of decorum and neutrality. A judge wielding guns in a self-produced video to make a point comes off less as a neutral arbiter and more as a political activist. This is troubling in any context, but especially so in the volatile arena of gun rights, where public trust in the judiciary’s objectivity is critical. As one law professor observed, VanDyke’s performance seemed like an “audition” for higher office (perhaps signaling to like-minded politicians for a future Supreme Court seat). Whether or not that was his intent, the optics were poor. It confirmed fears that some judges may approach Second Amendment cases with an outcome-driven, ideological zeal rather than judicial restraint.
Judge VanDyke’s video dissent illustrated the excesses to which Second Amendment absolutism can lead in the judiciary. When a judge believes so strongly that virtually any gun control is unconstitutional, the normal confines of judicial behavior can fall by the wayside. The incident was a stark reminder of why the judiciary has ethical guardrails. Judges must appear (and be) impartial – deciding cases based on law and evidence, not turning themselves into showpeople for a cause. As Judge Berzon put it, judges should “do exactly and only that: write” their opinions, leaving advocacy and demonstrations to others. The credibility of the courts depends on that discipline. Second Amendment questions, like all constitutional questions, demand cool-headed analysis, not theatrics. The VanDyke episode, while extreme, underscores the importance of rejecting absolutism’s pull even in the courtroom. The rule of law requires that gun policy disputes be resolved through evidence-based adjudication and respect for the judicial process – not YouTube rants from the bench.
Americans Support Gun Rights with Reasonable Limits
Second Amendment absolutists often claim to represent the will of “the people” in resisting any gun regulation. The reality is that the American public’s views on gun rights are far more nuanced – and overwhelmingly supportive of middle-ground, common-sense measures. Polling data consistently shows that most Americans cherish the Second Amendment and favor reasonable gun safety laws. The absolutist position (“no new gun laws, ever”) is a distinct minority view. There is broad bipartisan agreement on many gun policies that respect the right to bear arms while aiming to reduce gun violence.
A 2023 national Fox News poll of registered voters found a striking consensus on several gun violence prevention proposals:
• Requiring background checks for all gun buyers – 87% of voters support this policy , an almost unheard-of level of agreement on any political issue. (Other polls have found similarly high support; for example, a Pew Research Center survey reported that around 85% of Americans – including many Republicans – favor universal background checks .) This reflects a near-universal understanding that verifying a buyer’s eligibility (criminal record, mental health) before a gun sale is just common sense and doesn’t undermine law-abiding citizens’ rights.
• Raising the legal age to buy all guns to 21 – 81% support . There is a widespread belief that an 18-year-old high schooler shouldn’t be able to walk into a store and purchase an AR-15 before they can buy a beer. Setting age 21 (as we do for handguns federally) for all firearm purchases is seen as a prudent safety measure, given data on brain development and impulsive behavior in late teens.
• Mandatory mental health checks on gun buyers – 80% support. Voters across the spectrum agree that screening for serious mental health red flags could help prevent firearms from falling into the wrong hands (though implementation raises questions, it’s an aspiration many share).
• Requiring a 30-day waiting period on all gun purchases – 77% support. The idea here is to create a “cooling-off” period to help prevent impulsive acts of violence or suicide. Over three-quarters of the public – including a substantial majority of gun owners – are comfortable with a short wait if it might save lives, viewing it as a minor inconvenience for a potentially significant benefit.
• Banning ‘assault-style weapons’ (such as AR-15s) – 61% support. A majority of Americans, according to this poll and others, favor a prohibition on military-grade semi-automatic rifles and high-capacity magazines that have been used in so many mass shootings. While this issue is more partisan (most Democrats support an assault weapons ban, Republicans are split), it’s noteworthy that even here, overall public sentiment leans in favor of some limits on the deadliest firearms.
The Fox News poll numbers underscore Americans broadly believing in Second Amendment rights with certain gun restrictions. There is no contradiction in the public’s mind between respecting the constitutional right to own guns for self-defense, hunting, sport, etc., and enacting measures to keep guns out of the wrong hands and reduce preventable tragedies. Many Americans see such measures as upholding a responsible vision of the Second Amendment – one where rights are exercised with respect for human life and community safety.
It’s especially telling that these policies enjoy strong bipartisan support. For instance, in polls on universal background checks, typically upward of 80–90% of Democrats and Republicans favor the idea . Even among NRA-member gun owners, surveys have found majority support for background checks and red-flag laws. This consensus flatly contradicts the absolutists’ narrative that any new gun law is a tyrannical affront to freedom. If “tyranny” were at hand, one would not expect 4 out of 5 Republicans to agree with it. The truth is that most Americans occupy a sensible middle ground: they want to protect responsible gun ownership and prevent dangerous people from obtaining or misusing guns. They recognize that things like background checks, waiting periods, and disqualifying violent felons or abusers from gun access are not steps toward nullifying the Second Amendment – they are prudent safeguards that coexist with the right to bear arms.
It’s worth noting that public opinion also reflects a desire for balance. When asked about broad priorities, Americans often say we should protect gun rights and pursue measures to prevent gun violence simultaneously. In one Pew Research survey, 8 in 10 adults said they believe there are ways to “keep guns out of the wrong hands” while also respecting the rights of citizens to own firearms. Similarly, Gallup polling has long shown that a majority supports “stricter gun laws” in general. Yet, at the same time, a majority opposes banning handgun ownership entirely – indicating support for moderate regulation, not prohibition . In other words, the public rejects absolutism on both ends: they don’t want to ban all guns (a scarce position in mainstream discourse anyway), but they also don’t subscribe to the view that any gun control is an infringement.
The political reality, unfortunately, is that this broad middle-ground consensus often gets lost in Washington’s partisan battles. The gun lobby’s hardline stance and the rhetoric of absolutist politicians can give the impression that America is hopelessly divided on gun policy. But the data tells a more hopeful story – there is broad agreement on many measures that respect gun rights while improving safety. Expanded background checks, more vigorous enforcement of existing laws, keeping guns from domestic abusers or those with serious mental illness, safe storage laws, red flag laws – all of these enjoy solid majority support nationally. They are, in effect, the embodiment of a balanced Second Amendment approach that the public desires.
When leaders insist that even these mild, consensus ideas are unacceptable, they are out of step with constituents. The “Second Amendment absolutist” platform – opposing background checks, opposing any new trafficking laws, or limits on accessories like bump stocks – amounts to an ideology of no compromise that most Americans (including most gun owners) do not share. Americans appear to understand what the courts and history have long affirmed: that it’s possible to uphold the Second Amendment and have laws to make our communities safer. Americans expect and demand this balanced approach. Slippery-slope scare tactics do not persuade them; they can distinguish between confiscating everyone’s guns (which virtually no serious policymaker proposes) and enacting targeted policies to prevent violence.
Public opinion, of course, isn’t the final word on constitutional interpretation. But it’s a critical part of the conversation, especially in a democracy where laws ultimately reflect the consent of the governed. Right now, the public is saying loud and clear: protect our rights, children, schools, and streets. The absolutist politicians and activists represent a vocal minority that has, in some cases, outsized influence. Bridging the gap between that influence and the public’s will remains a challenge. However, recognizing that the “all or nothing” rhetoric does not speak for the majority is an important step. It creates political space for lawmakers to pursue the widely supported middle path – strengthening gun laws in ways that respect responsible gun owners. Indeed, there have been recent bipartisan successes (e.g., the 2022 Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, which enhanced background checks for younger buyers and supported state red flag laws) precisely because some lawmakers heeded these public signals.No Right Is Absolute: Lessons from the First and Fourth Amendments.
Moving Toward a Balanced Understanding of the Second Amendment
The Second Amendment absolutist narrative may be loud in certain quarters, but it ultimately distorts history, law, and public sentiment. As we’ve seen, the Constitution’s rights have always lived alongside reasonable regulations, and the right to keep and bear arms is no exception. Absolutism ignores the clear text of judicial decisions like Heller and Bruen, which affirm the right while acknowledging limits. It disregards the responsible tradition of gun ownership in America, where rights have been exercised with respect for rules and civic responsibility. It also mischaracterizes the American people’s views, which favor moderation and practical solutions over rigid ideology.
In pushing back against Second Amendment absolutism, one is not advocating against the Second Amendment – far from it. The goal, instead, is to affirm a robust Second Amendment that exists in harmony with other values: public safety, justice, and the rights of others. The framers of the Bill of Rights did not intend our liberties to be a suicide pact. They did not view freedom and security as incompatible; instead, they sought an ordered liberty. James Madison and his contemporaries understood the phrase “well regulated” to mean that freedom and regulation were complementary, not contradictory. Over two centuries, that understanding has been borne out: we have cherished individual rights and passed laws to ensure those rights do not undermine the general welfare.
When politicians like Rep. Boebert claim the Second Amendment is “absolute,” and anyone who disagrees is a “tyrant,” it’s a punchy soundbite for her base – but it’s not a serious position. Absolutism makes for provocative tweets and fundraising emails, but it makes for poor governance and jurisprudence. The complexities of modern technology with semi-automatic weapons require nuance. Even Justice Antonin Scalia, no friend of gun control, recognized that society could place responsibilities on gun owners (like safe storage requirements or training, for instance) and restrictions on misuse without violating the Second Amendment. “Rights with responsibilities” is where most Americans stand, and our policies should aim to align.
Moving toward a balanced approach means rejecting the false dichotomy that we either “protect gun rights or protect people.” We can and must do both. It means listening to the judges who counsel caution and humility rather than those who make YouTube videos ridiculing their colleagues. It means remembering that the Second Amendment exists within the Constitution, with the promise of “domestic tranquility” and the mandate to “ensure the general Welfare.” The Founders never intended to be a license for unlimited private arsenals or an obstruction to all public safety measures. Like all constitutional rights, it is subject to the rule that one person’s liberty should not needlessly endanger another’s life.
In practical terms, a balanced approach would affirm the individual right to own firearms for lawful purposes while allowing lawmakers to enact evidence-based measures such as comprehensive background checks, sensible limits on dangerous weapons, red flag laws to disarm those shown as a threat, and so forth. It would encourage continued examination of what historically grounded regulations are effective today – precisely the kind of inquiry Justice Thomas envisioned in Bruen. It would also resist the chilling effect of absolutist rhetoric on discussing new policies. There is nothing unconstitutional about debating where to draw the lines; that democratic debate is healthy and necessary.
Ultimately, the “shall not be infringed” clause does not mean “shall not be regulated at all.” We don’t read “freedom of speech” to mean no laws about speech; we don’t read “shall not be infringed” in the Second Amendment to mean no laws about guns. Constitutional rights and reasonable regulations can and do coexist – that is the American way, refined over two centuries. Embracing that principle is not only consistent with our legal traditions, but it is essential to crafting solutions to our very real gun violence problems. We can uphold the Second Amendment and take prudent steps to protect our communities; doing both is the only path forward. The absolutist alternative is a dead end that invites legal absurdity, judicial overreach, and societal harm.
It’s time to put to rest the myth of Second Amendment absolutism. By preserving all the context and wisdom that history, the courts, and the public offer, we can ensure the right to bear arms remains secure while making America safer. That balanced vision honors our constitutional heritage and the core values of life and liberty for all. In a society founded on ordered liberty, we must reject extremes and find common ground – and on guns, that means standing firm on rights and responsibility.