Last modified: Sunday, December 2, 2007 6:52 AM PST Second Amendment debate lingers Occasionally it is a good idea to review the fundamental pillars that our republic rest upon.   The exercise is not difficult. All the interested individual needs to do is look at the first few amendments of the Constitution. Here are the top seven elements the founders of our nation felt critical to the new republic: freedom of religion; free speech; a free press; the right to assemble and right to petition the government. Next in line are a “well-regulated” militia and the right to bear arms.   There they are, the top seven items as outlined by our founders.   The last two items on this particular Top 7 list hold a interesting place in the news lately after the Supreme Court agreed to hear next year a case regarding a Washington D.C., handgun ban.   A federal appeals court has already ruled the gun ban is unconstitutional, but it will be for the justices on the nation’s highest court to make a final call on this Second Amendment issue.   In a sense, and if one reads the text of the Second Amendment, there is not much question, though there may be plenty to decide.   The Second Amendment to the Constitution is not a difficult series of sentences to read or understand. In fact, the amendment is brilliant in its simplicity.   It is very specific. It outlines a mandate for states to operate a well-managed militia (what is today’s National Guard, though some constitutional experts would argue that point) and the policy that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.   It is that simple. The amendment contains no legalese, no mixing of metaphors or difficult concepts.   The amendment is not physics. It is simple. People of the United States have a right to keep and bear arms.   Looking at the D.C., issue in context, the reasons for the ban make sense. Mass crime and killings pushed the township to create the ban. And, in another sense, the case is about gun control and about local control.   The District of Columbia made a local decision with its handgun ban, one local officials saw as important. That’s a different argument, however, than whether the Second Amendment has been violated or, for that matter, whether the Second Amendment clearly gives the people the right to keep and bear arms.   It does give us that right.   The best thing about the justices taking up this issue is that it will be a test of sorts to see if the words of the Constitution in this nation really do matter. One can read the Second Amendment over and over. In the end the words means the same. “. . . 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.” It is a simple text. That’s why it is a mystery it appears to confuse so many.