Second Amendment

A big vote today on authorizing people to carry concealed weapons across state lines. It was defeated but the vote was close. Why now? This seems strange in light of the number of people who have been shot and killed in our country over the past several weeks. Policemen sometimes find themselves out-gunned in exchanges with criminals, and we are shooting ourselves down far better than the Taliban or Al-Qaeda could ever do. Even the number killed on 9-11-2001 is racked up again and again about every 40 days by American terrorists using guns. And while I sit here and write this I almost KNOW that another big shooting is coming later this week or maybe next week.

What is the second amendment anyway? Believe it or not, most people don't know. What does it really say? What does it mean?

I sometimes tell people that the second word in the second amendment is the word “regulated”. That’s not quite true but it's not far off the mark. Actually the amendment reads: “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.”

It’s pretty simple. A single sentence with two clauses. Five words immediately stand out. "Militia", "State", "people", "Arms", and "infringed". These words can be very interesting.

"Militia". This word has many different meanings, but their common connection seems to be related to a concept of “military” control, with various civilian modifications. There seems to be no doubt that all militias will perform under the authority and guidance of a responsible leader who had been chosen and deputized by the officials elected by citizens of the “state” which would be protected by these militias. It is the authorizing clause of the entire amendment and clearly the reason upon which the second clause is dependent.

"State". Almost certainly refers to the individual states who will ratify the constitution of the United States.

"People". Interesting use of the designee of this right. It does not say “citizens” or “persons”. There is no right for “citizens” to keep and bear arms . . . or for “people” to do so. The right is assigned to “the people”.

"Arms". Fascinating choice of words here with many meanings from anatomical to clothing and nautical and several others. The two main ones which probably apply to this amendment are 1) the ability to physically carry a weapon and 2) to serve as a member of a military force. Which one applies here? Obviously, the one related to being part of a military force would complete the first clause of the amendment which refers to “militia”.

"Infringed". To "infringe" is to weaken a right that has been awarded. For example, if “citizens” had been the subject of the Second Amendment instead of “the people”, all American citizens would now be able to carry their guns, concealed or otherwise, into airports, onto commercial airliners, military installations, schools, jails and prisons, the House of Representatives, the Senate, into presidential press conferences, sporting events, and many other places where the carrying of guns are currently, and traditionally have been "infringed" - by being prohibited.

Going back to “arms” we wonder about assault rifles. That would seem to be applicable to the “militia” part, but then why not hand grenades too? Or flame-throwers, tanks, rockets, high explosives, phosphorus chemicals, mustard gas, Agent Orange, atomic and nuclear weapons, missiles, air planes and so on? They could all come in handy on various occasions. Even when the amendment was written, back in the late 1770s, the scope of military “arms” included weapons sufficient to destroy fortified castles. This seems to reinforce the understanding that the right which is reserved to “the people” to “keep and bear arms” in “militias” for the purpose of providing security for “the State” is to be accomplished under the direction and control of deputized personnel who are acting under the authority of that state.

So what does this bill that would permit unknown people to secretly smuggle guns across state lines have to do with the second amendment? It looks like a way to shoot holes in the constitution. Come on Senators Hagan and Burr, you can do better than that - who do you REALLY represent?

John Womack

This post is not copyrighted and is intended to be in the public domain.