The slippery slope of the Second Amendment

In order to develop solutions to mass shootings in this country, we must first establish a foundation of fact that everyone can agree on. Yes, I'm talking about the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.

A question I often get in response to my columns about mass shootings goes something like this:

What law, if it had been passed prior to the mass shooting, would have prevented it from happening, while at the same time preserving the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms?

As a reminder, the Second Amendment simply reads, "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."

So, the answer I keep coming up with for this question is that it depends on how you define "arms." Google defines it this way: "weapons and ammunition; armaments." But what does that mean when it comes to the rights of responsible gun owners? An agreed-upon definition is important because without a common understanding of what we're talking about, we cannot begin to have productive conversation around gun policy and legislation while also protecting Second Amendment rights.

Another protest I tend to hear is that gun laws are a "slippery slope" and that once we start banning one type of weapon, it's only a matter of time before others are taken away and our rights are increasingly infringed upon.

But the truth of the matter is that we already have weapons bans. There are arms that are already illegal in America — fully automatic weapons and sawed-off shotguns and rifles, for example. Nuclear weapons are banned. Switchblade knives are also illegal. I would consider all of these in the "arms" category. I don't hear a lot of arguments over illegal grenades and bombs, though. Some arms are rightfully out of reach for everyday civilians, and it seems we can all agree on that point.

The proverbial slippery slope works both ways. The Federal Assault Weapons Ban was in place for 10 years, from 1994 to 2004. Now we commonly see the previously banned AR-15-style rifle used in mass shootings like the recent atrocities in Nashville and Louisville. This seems to be where America fights the most regarding where we should draw the line for the right-to-bear-arms argument.

The semi-automatic AR-15 was designed for the military in the 1950s but is now considered the civilian counterpart to the fully automatic M-16 military weapon that gave soldiers an advantage over the AK-47 in combat. If one military-grade weapon is available to the general public, then why not other weapons designed for war? If you can buy an AR-15-style as a civilian without any kind of training or licensure, why not a hand grenade?

I go back to my original question. What does it mean to have the right to "bear arms" in the United States? Which arms fall within those rights? Does requiring training, licensing and insurance, like we do for motor vehicles, infringe on our Second Amendment rights?

It's seemingly wide open for interpretation, leaving Americans with no clear understanding of where the line should be drawn. If we can save the soapbox buzzwords and the bickering, perhaps having meaningful conversations around what the language of the amendment means might be a good place for our leaders to start. Congress should provide America with a working definition of what it means to "bear arms." Then maybe we can set aside thoughts and prayers and begin to have productive discourse that produces solutions and saves lives.