FreeMarketUnderBlog

In the Second Amendment to the US Constitution, the Founding Fathers sought to maintain the freedom of the people to keep and bear arms. They knew that a well-armed citizenry was drastically less likely than an unarmed one to become the victim of a tyrannical government. This is the purpose of this amendment. This amendment has nothing to do with your right to go hunting, whether with a handgun or a bazooka. The founders figured that the possibility of being shot would make a sufficient deterrent to senators and congressman to consider laws that might abridge personal freedoms. (Obviously they would be disappointed to see how it has turned out so far.) 

The phrase “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state” is included in the second amendment, just before it says “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. This “well regulated militia” verbiage is used today by those who would ban guns in stating that the only purpose for owning guns is if you are part of a militia, and, by extension, if you are defending, presumably from a foreign attack, your state or the nation. If so, this would be the only right affirmed by the constitution that applies to you as a member of a group, rather than to you as an individual. It would seem unlikely that the Founding Fathers would use a collective approach to this particular right when they clearly used an individual approach with regard to all other personal rights. In my opinion, this notion alone negates the argument that the Founders were discussing the rights of militias here, rather than those of individuals. 

It may, however, be a fair question as to why the Founding Fathers included this language at all, although I know of no source that can provide a definitive answer. The Federalist Papers spend significant time discussing the danger of a strong federal government, and the need for the people and, yes, state militias, to be able to offset any concentrated federal military strength. The Founders continually warned of the dangers of a “standing army”, and probably would have assumed that it would be through militias that the people would play this offsetting role. It is also likely that there was contentious debate over this issue (as there was with many words and phrases of the Constitution), and that this language reflects some sort of a compromise, possibly one that none of the Founding Fathers were completely happy with. 

Whatever the case may be, the Founders were clearly in favor of a check on unbridled federal power, and the broadest possible interpretation of the right to bear arms is likely closest to their original intent.  In my opinion, despite the inclusion of the “militia” phrase, the founders would more likely have us err on the side of maintaining a stronger rather than weaker check on federal power, however distasteful any such military action might be to some people today. I think they would consider the mention of “militia” in the Second Amendment in no way an abridgement of the right of individuals to keep and bear arms – whether to protect themselves, or to threaten their elected officials. 

Therefore, to resolve any unintended confusion, I would suggest an alteration that removes this language and adds the phrase “individually and collectively” so that it reads as “The right of the people, individually and collectively, to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” In my opinion, if the Founding Fathers could foresee the trouble the existing language is causing today, they would not hesitate to clarify the Second Amendment accordingly.