Guest columnist Keith Peterson: It's time for serious discussion on updating Second Amendment

"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."

From my reading of history, the Second Amendment to the Constitution, which has its roots in English Common Law, became part of the Bill of Rights for three main reasons.

First, having suffered under the oppression of the British crown, the founders of the new nation did not want the state to have an absolute monopoly on violence and wanted the citizenry to have the opportunity to rise up against potential tyranny.

Second, our founders had watched the large standing armies of the European powers drain the treasuries and place undue burdens on the citizens. That is why we also have the Third Amendment, which forbids the billeting of troops in private homes.

Third, the Southern states and, in particular, the Southern planters lived in fear of slave revolts and wanted the power to form militias to put down any such efforts by the enslaved to free themselves.

James Madison wrote that local militias could keep any federal forces in check and prevent tyranny by the state. They had just created what we now celebrate as a brilliant governmental structure of checks and balances, but given the trauma of colonial rule, they still feared their own creation.

The opposition to a standing army lasted until the War of 1812 when seasoned British troops dispatched the less well organized American militias. As one British officer wrote in his diary: "Are these soldiers? They look like farmers."

However, other than the Civil War, the U.S. did not raise a large standing army for its first 125 years, but that all changed in the 20th century. Defense spending today remains the largest discretionary portion of the federal budget. And slavery ended 160 years ago.

My point is we don't live in 18th century America anymore. That country no longer exists. Certainly, there are Americans who believe that the right to bear arms must be preserved so that tyranny by the federal government can be opposed. Some of those individuals stormed the Capitol on January 6th. There are plenty of ways to check federal power - elections, the courts, protests, or media. Do we want to live in a nation where grievances are settled by violence?

In recent months, I sat up straight reading The New York Times when conservative columnist Brett Stephens opined on more than one occasion that he wanted to see the Second Amendment repealed. That seems to be an impossible lift. What about replaced?

There are some 400 million guns in the hands of private individuals in America. Trying to ban guns would most likely end as badly as Prohibition. How about an amendment that reflects the reality of the densely populated urban nation we live in today? There would be an individual right to own certain weapons. That way, no one could say: "They are coming to take your guns." Weapons of war, however, would not be among them. Background checks would be universal. Guns would be licensed and the licenses would be renewed regularly. Perhaps all sales would have to go through state-owned shops, like liquor in 17 states. Penalties for illegal trafficking in guns would be severe. Gun safety courses, lockboxes, and trigger locks would be mandatory.

One can note that the Equal Rights Amendment lives on with Illinois' ratification in 2018 and Virginia's in 2020, but while it has not been ratified, it forced a debate and catalyzed the passage of numerous laws giving rights to women and other marginalized groups. A movement to repeal and replace the Second Amendment might help concentrate some inflexible minds in Washington.

• Keith Peterson, of Lake Barrington, served 29 years as a press and cultural officer for the United States Information Agency and Department of State. He was chief editorial writer of the Daily Herald 1984-86.