2nd Amendment was enacted on December 15, 1791… It simply
says;
“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.”
Does the 2nd Amendment guarantee individuals
the right to bear arms? Thousands of volumes of opinions and interpretations
have been written on the subject so is there a need for one more opinion?
If you think there is, keep on reading…
As far as I can gather, in 1791, we lived in a very
different country. Most of the population used to live in farms, engaged in
husbandry. When the need arose, people were called upon to bear arms and join
together to form a “militia”. This was the case when The Continental Army was established
by a resolution of the Continental Congress on June 14, 1775. The Continental
Army also included a number of militia units from the States. Most of the
weaponry of the Continental army was muskets, canons and pistols and cavalry
also had sabers. (The Continental Army was disbanded in 1783 after the Treaty
of Paris ended the revolutionary war. The 1st and 2nd Regiments went on to form
the nucleus of the Legion of the United States in 1792 under General Anthony
Wayne. This became the foundation of the United States Army in 1796, 5 years
after the adoption of the 2nd Amendment).
According to historians and Constitutional scholars,
early English settlers in America viewed the right to bear arms and form state
militias as important part of their rights for the purpose of enabling the
people to organize a well-regulated militia system, participating in law
enforcement by forming a posse, deterring a future tyrannical government in
form of a monarchy, repelling a possible invasion force, suppressing
insurrection (allegedly including slave revolts) and facilitating a natural
right of collective self-defense.
During that period, public use of the English language
was also somewhat different. Years later, Lincoln would start his Gettysburg
address on November 19, 1863 by saying “Four score and seven years ago…”
instead of just saying “87 years ago”. Today, the term of “A Well Regulated
Militia” roughly refers to the equivalent of present day National Guard. Yet,
there were no regular Army units at that time which would resemble anything
like today’s Army, Navy or Air Force. Even during the Civil War, most of the
combatants on both sides were regular folks who answered the call of duty and after
the end of the war, those who survived simply laid their arms and went home.
When considered against this context, 2nd
Amendment is simply saying that people have the right to bear arms to form a
well-regulated militia (army) since a well-regulated militia is essential for
the security of a free state. As far as I can see, there is nothing in the 2nd
Amendment to secure the right of individuals to own assault weapons, high
capacity magazines, armor piercing bullets, RPG-7s, IEDs, fissile material,
ICBMs and nuclear warheads for personal use or defense.
