Amendment II

Breaking down the Amendments, part two.

The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is probably one of the most perplexing sentences in the United States of America. Courts and Politicians have argued it's meaning since December 15, 1791. The words aren’t complex; the sentence structure leaves a lot to be defined (again, founders liked to use commas to set context):

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.

Again this use of the “comma” forces us to break down the sentence structure, so hold on it’s going to be a bumpy ride.

First part: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state

Consider the times, 1776 the Colonies decided they no longer wished to live under the Crown of England, check that, about 15% of the Colonists decided this. Those 15% just happened to be landowners, wealthy and capable of forming a resistance both through personality and financing (do a little independent thinking on John Hancock and you’ll discover a lot).

From 1775 to 1783 the Colonies were fighting and slowly winning their sovereignty. This was a time and era where individual rights were the last things on a King’s mind – think socialism meets dictatorship in a horrific union. That said, 1786 rolls around and the United States are finally just that, United.

After realizing that being forced under a certain religion and not being able to speak, right or “march” for a cause was a horrible thing, the founders realized they needed to back that statement up or risk falling to the same page in history.

A well regulated militia was more feasible than a large scale standing Army because during that time there was a far greater sense of community and personal responsibility when it comes to defense than we have today. Not to mention, it was considerably cheaper – something advantageous to a new found State. People sometime consider this statement “..the security of a free state” to mean the independent states (13 at the time), I offer that it means the union of State – the Country itself, not necessarily the independent States. That is another debate. Essentially what we have here is the founders saying “hey we need a capability to defend this Nation now since England will no longer provide us Security”.

Second part: the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

And now the confusing part, well, not really just people attempt to over-analyze this to a fault. The statement is simple, people keep and bear arms and that right cannot be limited by the Government itself. The concept is very, very simple. The founders were a smart group and they knew that Governments couldn’t be trusted because people run them, limited people, people of power and people are riddled with authoritative hunger – absolute power corrupts absolutely.

The founders weren’t going to see that happen here. Thus they provided the average person, “the People” (as in “We the People….”) the Right to maintain firearms for defense. What the founders didn’t do was say the People have the right to bear arms, as long as the Government thinks it is all right. However, the people do have the right through their self-governing to create guidance. And right here is where the constant debate lands. See, most people and most elected officials know there is absolutely, 100%, no chance of repealing the 2nd Amendment, instead they attempt to limit it through legislative action deemed as “security” for the individual – kind of goes directly in the face of the reason we have a Bill of Rights, doesn’t it? The Government telling the People, something seems backwards here.

One thing to note is that there were two versions of the Second Amendment, one that Congress liked, one that the States ratified. What do you think the States changed? The context…the comma…as in they removed one. And where was the comma? The original writing, the one you find in the National Archives, goes as follows:

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.

The ratified version by the States goes 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.

Ah, you see, a context change. Congress liked the pause between the Peoples rights and general infringement, or limiting. The States wanted it clear that the “infringement” piece of that Right was tied directly to the People. Think about that next time someone tries to preach to you what the 2nd Amendment meant, ask him or her about the context and who and what was meant by it. Slippery slope. Keep thinking people, keep thinking.