The Second Amendment

Having been requested to share my views on the Second Amendment, please consider the following. The first quotes were obtained from Wikipedia HERE...

In the early months of 1789, the United States was engaged in an ideological conflict between 'Federalists' who favored a stronger central government and 'Anti-federalists' skeptical of a strong central government.

Intense concerns gripped the country of the potential for success or failure of these newly-formed United States. The first presidential inauguration of George Washington had occurred just a few short weeks earlier.

Anti-federalists supported the proposal to amend the Constitution with clearly-defined and enumerated rights to provide further constraints on the new government, while opponents felt that by listing only certain rights, other unlisted rights would fail to be protected. Amidst this debate, a compromise was reached and James Madison drafted what ultimately would become the United States Bill of Rights and that was proposed to the Congress on June 8, 1789.

The following quotes can be found HERE...

The origin of the Second Amendment... occurred in context of an ongoing debate about "the people" fighting governmental tyranny, (as described by Anti-federalists); or the risk of mob rule of "the people", (as described by the Federalists).

Reaching a compromise between these widely disparate positions was not easy, but nonetheless, a compromise was negotiated with the result being the Second Amendment.

The Second Amendment then, is essentially a compromise between those who favored a strong central government with a standing national army, and those who feared one. In Britain, the general population had been disarmed and were therefore at the mercy of the government. Anti-federalists feared that over time, a strong central government would become corrupt and enslave Americans. In order to prevent this from occuring, they demanded that citizens be allowed to arm themselves against a potential dictator who could command a national army. In this way, they would be able to ensure their new-found freedoms. Here is the text of the Second Amendment...

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.

So then, where... 1) 'Militia' = a body of citizens organized for military service other than that of a standing national army, 2) A 'State' = an individual state within the United States, and 3) 'The People' = individual citizens... then we may interpret this Amendment, as follows:

Each individual state within the United States shall have the right to maintain a militia in order to provide for the security needed to insure its freedom from the Federal government, said militia being "well regulated" (i.e., not disorderly) and composed of individual people who each have the right to keep and bear arms. These individuals will come to the aid of their state when called upon should the Federal government overstep its bounds. [Note: In the late 1700s and early 1800s state militias were loosely knit groups of farmers, hunters, traders and patriots who responded -- sometimes reluctantly -- to a call for action.]

This, I believe, is the interpretation the Anti-federalists would have given to the wording of the Second Amendment.

Alternatively, where... 1) 'Militia' = a national standing army, 2) A 'State' = the United States, and 3) 'The People' = the citizenry as a collective... then we may interpret this Amendment, as follows:

A standing national army is necessary for the United States to provide for the national security in order to protect our freedoms from hostile foreign nations or from insurrection, either by individuals, groups of individuals, or the individual states. It is recognized that said army must be "well regulated" so that it does not infringe on personal freedoms or states' rights. To that end, the citizenry (collectively) shall never be denied the right to maintain a standing national army.

This, I believe, is the interpretation the Federalists would have given to the wording of the Second Amendment.

Hence, a compromise. Both interpretations are equally valid and correct. Both interpretations are inherent in the wording of the compromise. Nevertheless, it should be noted that the Federalists saw no need for a Bill of Rights of which the Second Amendment is a part. In fact, a national army and navy had already been assumed in the Constitution at Section 2, Clause 1 which names the President as the Commander in Chief of those forces. Therefore, the inclusion of the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights, adopted at the urging of the Anti-federalists, lends greater weight to their interpretation.

The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them. --Associate Justice of the Supreme Court Joseph Story, "Commentaries on the U.S. Constitution" 1833

We can conclude then, that the right to keep and bear arms is vested at all levels of government from the Federal, to the state, to the individual. In the case of the Federal and state governments this right is clearly granted for the purpose of self-defense. The Federal government is vested with the right to maintain a standing national army in order to defend the well-being and liberties of its national citizens. Each individual state is likewise vested with the right to maintain a militia in order to defend the well-being and liberties of its state's citizens. Implicitly then, each individual person - upon whom the entire government is founded ("We the people..." --Preamble, United States Constitution) - is vested with the right to keep and bear arms in order to defend the well-being and liberties of each... their country, their state, and ultimately their individual person.

Arguments to the contrary are irrational. To be given the right to defend the well-being and liberties of one's country or one's state without having the right to defend one's personal well-being and liberties is sheer nonsense. Such a stance would suggest that a country or state can be free, while the citizens of said country or state cannot be free.

Since self-defense is the 'Raison d'être' for the right to keep and bear arms at the Federal and state level, it follows logically that self-defense should likewise be the basis for the right to keep and bear arms at the level of the individual citizen. An armed citizen can defend his/her country, his/her state, or his/her individual person. In each and every case, the individual is the ultimate beneficiary of the defensive action. And that is what the Founding Fathers envisioned.