Why can't I be a "supporter of the 2nd amendment," too?

Listening to some of the discussions in the media in the aftermath of the shooting in Arizona this weekend, it is striking how the language of the gun control debate seems to favor the anti-gun control side.

Language matters.  The words we choose often convey bias or judgement - good or bad, right or wrong.  The NRA and its anti-gun control allies seem to have won the battle over language.  Time and time again, I have heard those in who oppose gun control (often of any kind) as "supporters of the 2nd amendment" or "supporters of 2nd amendment rights."  Now, I favor some forms of gun control.  I favor a ban on assault weapons, I favor waiting periods and more serious background checks.  I favor mandatory training and licenses, like you need to drive a car (another potentially deadly weapon).  But I also believe in the Constitution and the 2nd amendment.  I just don't interpret it as broadly as the NRA and most anti-gun control people do.

So why does the media tend to use language that makes me seem like I am against part of the Constitution and against the 2nd amendment?

Here's what the 2nd amendment actually 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."


Seems pretty clear to me that this protects people's right to own weapons because we need a citizen milita to defend the freedom of the country.  Now, we live in an era where the US military and National Guard protect the freedom of the country, so the intent of the amendment would seem moot.  But I am willing to acknowledge a long-standing tradition of gun ownership in this country under a broad interpretation of this amendment.  But it would seem prudent and constitutional for the government to pass laws limiting or regulating access to weapons if it is in the interest of protecting the general population.


But that does not make me "anti-2nd amendment," as the current language used in the media would suggest.  By suggesting that those against gun control "support" the amendment (and, therefor, the Constitution), it is implied that those for gun control are against the amendment (and the Constitution).  that pretty much stifles the debate.