By Ross Reitz

Where I grew up, we had to pass hunting rifle safety in our sixth-grade curriculum. My neighbors fed their families through hunting — but somehow, people who never had to depend on hunting for food started putting rifles and AK-47s in the same category.

Repeated studies have shown that limiting access to automatic weapons saves lives, but some gun rights advocates argue the Second Amendment prevents any regulation of firearms. Somehow being able to feed your family, to them, is equal to an untrained, unlicensed white nationalist carrying an automatic weapon into a crowded and volatile situation.

While the Second Amendment allows gun ownership, shouldn’t the Second Amendment be interpreted like the other 26 amendments? Does permission mean lack of any regulation? We believe in free speech, but the First Amendment never allowed us to make violent threats against another person or print known lies. Limiting what we say in these cases doesn’t destroy the First Amendment — it strengthens it. Freedoms granted in the constitution were never intended — even by the founding fathers — to be unregulated.

Conservatives argue the Constitution needs to be interpreted the way the Constitutions’ writers interpreted it. So what did our founding fathers believe about the Second Amendment? They believed the federal government should have limited control over the army. To the Second Amendment’s approvers, the army was organized by the individual states, and army units were loaned to the federal government. The Second Amendment provided a way for the states to train and maintain army units for our country’s defense. So, while I would disagree with the following interpretation, I can accept the belief that individual citizens have the right to own dangerous weapons — but only if the person making that argument also believes that Ralph Northam has the right to block all Virginian soldiers from participating in any military procedure if he disagrees with Donald Trump. That is how the Second Amendment was interpreted when it was ratified.

Even without interpretation, the Second Amendment’s exact words state its purpose is to provide for the national defense — not individual use. When debating the Second Amendment, our founding fathers consciously chose to remove wording that would have allowed individual use of weapons. Since our founders wrote into the Second Amendment its purpose, our forefathers themselves limit the options we have in interpreting it correctly. The Second Amendment states its purpose is to allow for national defense so we can have a free country. However, we now have four military branches plus Homeland Security. If we already have a “well regulated militia,” it’s hard to defend that individual citizens must be allowed to carry automatic weapons in public for national defense. People who believe we must carry automatic weapons to defend ourselves, according to the Second Amendment, must then take the position that our military is not strong enough to defend us.

Again, in the exact words of the Second Amendment, we have the right to bear arms to provide for a “well regulated militia.” Well regulated. The original writing underscores that there are regulations in how we use weapons! Without interpretation, the Second Amendment itself states we need laws and procedures of how we use weapons. Just as our government has chosen that individuals aren’t allowed to own atomic bombs, it has the right to regulate that automatic weapons are for the armed forces, not individual use.

So, if this amendment is for a well regulated military, why would conservatives overturn laws requiring gun owners to have a permit and pass a safety course? Has our country ever refused to train soldiers because knowing how to use a weapon would take away the freedom of owning it? Every state requires you to pass a driving test before you can drive on your own. Why are conservative state legislatures taking away laws requiring you to pass a safety test before owning and shooting a gun?

While conservatives argue we should interpret the Second Amendment the way our forefathers did, they aren’t entirely honest. Conservatives want the rest of us to interpret the Constitution the same way they do, and then want to attribute that interpretation to the founding fathers without proof.

Ross Reitz has been a Suffolk resident since 2009. Prior to that, he taught the Bible in Africa for two years and spent six years as a teacher at a Christian school in Philadelphia, Pa.