I know this is a sensitive and even volatile subject for many people, and I have given this some serious thought before posting. Let me state up front that I bear no ill will against either pro or anti-gun people. I own a hunting rifle but haven’t hunted in years. It is not my desire to come down on either side of the gun ownership argument. The regulation of firearm ownership just isn’t an issue for me. I’m not a lawyer, my ox isn’t being gored, and I don’t have an ax to grind. But I do hope there is impetus for intelligent discussion.
The problem I have is that pro-gun people argue that the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees that they may own any type of firearm they desire and that neither the federal nor State governments may infringe upon their “right to bear arms.” I’ve also heard that the Supreme Court will be taking up some cases which involve the Second Amendment.
The whole of the Second Amendment reads 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.”
To make sense, several words or a phrase should not be lifted out of context to try to make a convincing argument, but the whole statement should be made to speak for itself. For example, the words engraved on the headquarters building of the NRA, I’m told, reads, ”the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” It seems to me that this phrase has been lifted out of its context.
The first phrase, “A well regulated militia,” sets the stage. From this, I gather that this is what the amendment is really all about.
“Well regulated” means that there is an organization that is governed by a framework of rules and regulations, what is expected of its members, what is expected of the organization, discipline, a hierarchy and chain of command which acts under a recognized authority to function as such, etc. There are official records and paperwork, something to prove its existence and activities.
The word “militia” gives some people heartburn. The militia of yesteryear is the State National Guard of today. The homepage of The Illinois National Guard and Militia Historical Society states: The Illinois National Guard and Militia Historical Society is a not-for-profit organization dedicated to promoting and developing the heritage of Illinois' citizen-soldiers. . . . The Society actively supports and raises funds for operation of the Illinois State Military Museum at Camp Lincoln in Springfield, Illinois. . . . The current exhibit highlights the history of the Illinois National Guard since its beginnings as the state militia [[My emphasis).
Could it be that “ the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed” means that, collectively [[sorry Bats), the citizens of each state are entitled to a well-regulated militia, a National Guard? Can the meaning of the amendment be stretched out to mean that in order for an individual to bear arms, he or she must be a sworn member of the “well regulated” militia or National Guard?
By the way, I think the term “state” in the amendment refers to a sovereign nation, the United States, not individual States.
I look forward to a good, thoughtful discussion.
Bookmarks