Guns don't kill people. The Constitution kills people.

In case you haven't heard, the Supreme Court has granted cert in the D.C. gun ban case. In other words, we are about to hear for the first time what the 2nd Amendment really means. The last time the Court heard a gun case was 1939, and it didn't resolve the central question of the meaning of the right to bear arms.

At issue is one that has polarized judges and politicians for decades: Do the Second Amendment's 27 words bestow gun ownership as an individual right, or do they bestow a collective one -- aimed at the civic responsibilities of state militias -- making it therefore subject to strict government regulation.

The amendment 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." A plain-text reading of the amendment would seem to support the right is a collective one - it is hard for a one-man militia to be very effective, despite the U.S. Army's new catch phrase.

The D.C. Court of Appeals ruled in March that the Washington, D.C. law that prohibits most people from owning a handgun is unconstitutional. It is the first time a circuit court has ever ruled a gun control law unconstitutional. And if the Supreme Court opens the flood gates with an overly expansive view of gun rights, it won't be the last.

I am not expecting a favorable ruling on this issue. And that fact is really starting to depress me. Until I found this YouTube video, which made me smile. Now this is a possible interpretation of the 2nd Amendment I had not considered before...