Interpreting the Second Amendment

One of our country's most hotly debated topics is the right (or lack there of) for individual firearm ownership. As I'm sure you will see in several upcoming posts, this is an issue I feel very strongly about. As we begin, it's important to remember that the Bill of Rights was meant to preserve and guarantee, not grant, certain pre-existing and innate rights.

I thought I would dip my toe into the icy waters of gun control debate by discussing the simple wordage from our Bill of Rights:

"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."

That's it. Only twenty-seven words.

One of the most frequent arguments from an anti-gun lobbyist is that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution doesn't guarantee an individual right, but rather the right of the state, usually the National Guard, to keep and bear arms. I guess they ignore some words and insert new ones when they read it and hear "the right of the National Guard to keep and bear arms" instead of "the right of the people."

Why is it that the word "people" is only interpreted in the 2nd Amendment and not any others? Can you imagine if the 1st Amendment interpreted the word "people" to mean the National Guard when it says, "...or the right of the people peaceably to assemble..."? What about the Fourth saying, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..."?

OK, let's ignore the fact that the Second Amendment specifically applies this enumerated right to "the people." For the moment we'll strike those words and let an anti-gun lobbyist rewrite the Amendment to say, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of that militia to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

What did the word "militia" mean to the founders when they crafted this document? Simply put, the militia was the entire body of citizenry that could be called up for military duty. The term "militia" didn't have any association with a formal organization. The National Guard wasn't formed until 1903, 114 years after the Bill of Rights was written. Dictionary.com still defines militia as:

1. An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
2. A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
3. The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.

What does this prove? I say that even if we were to let the anti-gun folks re-write the 2nd Amendment and strike the words "the people" from the parchment, that I could still own a firearm.

Now that hopefully you agree that the 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms, we move on to the last few words...

"... shall not be infringed."

I can not think of any possible way that could be stated more clearly.

I realize a lot of my argument depends on the assumption that you, Loyal Reader, believe that the founding fathers knew what they were doing when they drafted the Bill of Rights. Some people may think they screwed up. That's fine. All I'm saying is this is the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution as it stands today, so you need to either vote in legislators who are willing to change it or get off the backs of law-abiding citizens such as myself that exercise their right to keep and bear arms. Personally, I feel there are very valid reasons for individuals to own firearms (another post perhaps)... and that abolishing something in the Bill of Rights is certainly a slippery slope that will set precedent for the erosion of our liberties that no government should regulate.

One more thing I'd like to add before closing the book on interpreting the 2nd Amendment... Imagine if there existed a similar amendment that read,

"A well-informed populace, being necessary to the security of an educated society, the right of the people to read and compose books shall not be infringed."

Any interpretation there?