As poker-faced NRA supporters lay out their arguments, like cards in a game with our future at stake, Parkland, Florida, students not only called their bluff (“We call b.s.!”), they tossed aside the table and cards, declaring that this game was over. And so it may be. By placing a badge of shame on all politicians, strong-armed by NRA’s bribes and blackmail to vote as they are told, these Parkland students have transformed the NRA’s source of power into a source of blame.

But, the NRA claims the game isn’t over yet. Here is their Trump card: “The Democrats are taking away your Second Amendment rights!”

Surely, we can’t call the Second Amendment b.s., but, if we deconstruct it — analyze and question it — as students are taught to do, we, too, might call NRA’s bluff. It’s just one sentence. Here’s what it says:

“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.”

1) Security is the basic right offered by any nation operating under a social contract, where free people allow their interests to be represented by others. “Security” is at the very heart of this Second Amendment.

2) Our Founders claimed that a “well regulated militia” is the necessary agent for providing that security. Why?

Largely, our Founders fashioned the Bill of Rights to address the fears of those who had just won their freedom, so they might ratify a constitution that would bind their allegiance to a federal system of government. People took pride in their militia and disdained the notion of a standing army, like the one they had just defeated. Their greatest fear was that a powerful central government would use such an army to advance the interests of those with wealth and power. Hadn’t that always been the way of the world? And, it must be remembered that these people were divided over the issue of slavery, fearing attack from states that did not share their beliefs. The Second Amendment, with its advocacy of each state having a “well regulated militia,” attempted to address these fears.

3) What is meant by “the right of the people to keep and bear arms”? It could have said “all people.” So, is it a collective right or an individual right? Similarly, when we collectively say, “Birds fly,” we are not speaking individually about “all birds.” Next, does “arms” mean weapons corresponding to what the militia carried at that time, or does it grant people the right to buy bazookas? At the end of the Civil War, Southern legislatures fearing righteous retribution from former slaves passed laws making it unlawful for blacks to possess firearms. The claim was made that the Second Amendment did not grant each individual the right to keep and bear arms. Rather, it was a collective right of society to maintain peace and uphold the law through use of arms. Though the motive behind this decision is suspect, the desire to prevent armed insurrection is understandable. In 1942, the Supreme Court affirmed this collective interpretation when it decided the Second Amendment did not grant people the right to purchase arms created for purposes of assault. Such arms are reserved for those entrusted to provide us with a lawful, safe environment. Bazookas are not for sale.

If our Second Amendment is (1) to guarantee us a safe environment, (2) maintained largely through community policing, like a modern-day militia representing the people it serves, backed up by stronger force when called for and (3) eliminating personal possession of assault weapons and keeping all weapons out of the hands of individuals advocating armed insurrection and those individuals too young or too troubled to trust, then who — besides gun profiteers, the NRA, and those the NRA supports — would want to take away these Second Amendment rights?

— Gregg Heacock lives in Bend.