Does the Second Amendment Say What We Think it Says?

The history behind the second amendment is not explicitly clear and thus, the meaning of the second amendment to the constitution of the United States is highly debatable (and is regularly debated). Let's explore the history behind it that is known and see what we can logically deduce about the people's right to have guns. First, we need to be sure that we fully understand the what the amendment literally states. The original wording goes a little something like this: "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." Never has one sentence caused so much hoopla. Okay, so let's start with the first few words: "A well regulated militia". Well regulated, according to constitution dot org, means "something being in proper working order." Dictionary dot com gave me several definitions of militia, all of which were very different from the others. Looking at the "well regulated," though, helps to distinguish exactly which definition our forefathers would have chosen if they were offered this bunch. The definition that we will use for this article, then, is "a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies." This was the only definition that sense with the whole "well regulated" added onto it. That was probably done on purpose, so we wouldn't lose our way when making sense of the amendment a hundred years after it was written. The only other part of the sentence we need to explicitly understand is where the words "bear arms" comes in. Does that mean to hold guns, or to own them? Dictionary.com says that to "bear arms" means to carry weapons (specifically, firearms). So, translated, the second amendment of the constitution says this:

"A group of citizens who are eligible and available for military service and who are in proper working order (I assume both in their brains and in their bodies) are essential to keeping our country free and safe. Therefore, the right of people to own and carry firearms shall not be infringed."

Well that makes a little more sense. Now, we should look at the history of the idea behind the second amendment so that we can understand more clearly how on Earth our forefathers would have had the insight to know that such an amendment would become necessary in later years. It seems that the history behind keeping and carrying firearms is one that goes more than a thousand years back. "The right to keep and bear arms as a part of English and American law antedates not only the Constitution, but also the discovery of firearms. Under the laws of Alfred the Great, whose reign began in 872 A.D., all English citizens from the nobility to the peasants were obliged to privately purchase weapons and be available for military duty." (U.S. Senate, 1982). This obligation was essentially a requirement and had to be proven year after year by every eligible citizen aged 15 to 60. This was bent to include firearms and crossbows by the time Henry VIII came along. Eventually, though, midway through the 17^th century in England, the right to own or carry guns was stripped from the lower classes and from anybody of the catholic religion entirely. It wasn't until 30 years later that the repressive laws would be overturned and both the rich and poor alike would be allowed to own guns once again. I think it's fair to say the right to own firearms, as well as the right to criticize the government without fear of retribution (as was not allowed in jolly old England at the time) were among the most appreciated rights that early colonists could have imagined having.

Suffice to say, those second amendment defenders have hit the nail right on the head. The framers of the constitution and the bill of rights wanted exactly what they said they wanted. They wanted citizens of the United States of America to have the right to own (and carry) firearms, as long as they were in proper working order. Today, the restrictions on firearms in the United States (checking for mental health and prison records) are absolutely along the lines of what the framers would have intended if they'd had the technology to do so, in my opinion. But control beyond that of any kind (what kind of gun you can own, how large or small it can be, whether or not it is automatic or has a silencer) is neither sanctioned nor intended anywhere in the bill of rights or constitution. It seems as though, perhaps, we are taking a step backward in this respect (as this sort of "gun control" was exactly what happened back in the 17^th century, just before they started taking firearms away from those who were not considered to be "nobility"). So much for progress, eh?

Sources:

US Congress, "The Bill of Rights" USA. URL: (http://www.billofrights.org/)

US Senate, "The Right to Keep and Bear Arms" The Constitution Society URL: (http://www.constitution.org/mil/rkba1982.htm)

Brian T. Halonen, "Meaning of the phrase "well regulated" in the 2^nd amendment" The Constitution Society URL: (http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm)

Dictionary.com, "Militia definitions" Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) URL: (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/militia)