The Second Amendment

Since my first post was about the First Amendment, why not continue with the theme, and make the second post about the Second Amendment. As I did last time, let’s start with what the Second Amendment 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.

Since the first half of that sentence really just provides some reasoning for why the second half is important, lets focus on the second half to begin. To get at what it means, let change a few of the words, to what would be considered more modern, common terms. “The right of the people to own and carry weapons, shall not be restricted.”

Having stated the right this way, I haven’t changed its meaning significantly, but I think it makes a bit more clear what was meant. Now that I think we have a bit clearer understanding of what is meant, let’s ask, “Does this conflict with our Framework for Liberty?”

First, does the simple state of owning a weapon infringe on anyone’s right to life, property, or self defense? No. In fact, it aids in your own right to defend yourself. Only if I use a weapon to harm or kill someone, or damage or deprive them of their property, have I violated their rights.

Next, let’s address the argument “shouldn’t we restrict the types of weapons people are allowed to own?” My response is “Why?” Does the Second Amendment say anything about certain types of weapons? Again, does simply owning such a weapon infringe on anyone’s rights? In fact, doesn’t placing restrictions on weapon ownership violate the right to own property and defend oneself as they see fit?

Next comes the argument “aren’t there certain people we shouldn’t allow to own weapons?” Perhaps. But how should we identify such people? Through the only fair process available to restrict a person’s rights, trial and conviction by a jury of ones peers. A person must either have violated the rights of others, or demonstrated a clear intent to do so, in such a way as to justify such a removal of their rights. Suspicion or status alone cannot be used to justify restricting the rights of others.

Now, since I skipped over the first part of sentence, let’s come back to it. It has been argued, that the very first part of that statement indicates that it should only apply to military, or “Militia,” and that they should be “regulated”. But let’s examine that.

What was meant by that phrase “well regulated Militia”? At the time, the word “regulated” did not carry the same connotation as it does today (i.e. governed by rules). There was no government at the time, and therefore no government regulations. In today’s common terms, we would say “well functioning Militia” (1).

Also, the word Militia would not have meant military, or standing army. There was no military or standing army of the United States, since the country hadn’t yet been founded, and no standing army would be created for quite some time afterwards. The people who founded and defended the United States were a group of people, voluntarily acting in concert, using privately owned weapons to extract themselves from the rule of a tyrannical government. Not a military.

Thinking in this context it is clear why this Amendment was included, and what was meant. The founding fathers knew it was a good thing a lot of private citizens owned weapons, because if they hadn’t, it would have been a lot more difficult to defeat the British Army, and establish their independence. They wanted to make sure, that if the United States government ever became like the one they had just escaped from, its citizens would have the same ability.