The Second Amendment: The Right to Bear Arms

Next up, the Second Amendment.  The Right to Bear Arms is what a lot of people know it as.  It is one of the most debated laws in our country and that debate stems back to the Civil War.  Yes, actually.  Prior to the Civil War, it wasn't really debated.  The average person didn't think twice.  The pioneers needed guns to protect themselves from wild animals and predators.  The average farmer needed it to hunt food and protect the homestead.  Guns were not cheap.  Most people didn't stock pile them.  They were made by hand and took time and craftsmanship.  Sam Colt would eventually introduce mass produced revolvers (aka. hand guns) in the early 1900s, but prior to that, revolvers were only for the rich, lawmen and well, bluntly, outlaws.  A Colt revolver in 1880 sold for a $20 gold piece.  The average household income was a little over $300 a year.  So a revolver was almost a month's income for over half the population.   

"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."

That's not very much there. One sentence and yet, one of the most debated sentences in the history of man, let alone the United States.

"A well regulated Militia,"

Let's consider current definitions:

"Well" in front of a word implies the same thing in the past as it does now. More, extra, very.

"Regulated" currently means control by means of rules and regulations, pretty much the same as it did when it was written.

"Militia" is a military force raised from a civilian population to supplement an army during an emergency situation.

There's where the debate begins. Those four words. Many would argue that a "militia" is no longer needed or that we maintain State Militias already in the form of the National Guard. By definition of those 4 words only, that seems to be clear, right?

"...being necessary to the security of a free State,..."

There's pretty much little to no argument associated with those words specifically. The wording implies that it attaches to the previous 4 words as a descriptor. Those that would argue the National Guard is the "militia" would definitely agree on it being for the security of a free State. Of course, it does not use the plural of the word at all. Capitalized and singular means that it would refer only to one "State", the actual Nation herself. On the other side of the argument, though, here's where the debate begins. The whole point of the American Revolution was because people were forced to give up their guns by appointed military and governors of the Crown. From their point of view, the security of the a free State is not necessarily guaranteed by the National Guard. The National Guard is still part of the United States Army, and while each answers first to its State's Governor, ultimately, every member of the Guard is answerable to the President of the United States. They swear the same oath as any other military member of the United States. There are plenty of examples of facist regimes that have used the military and guards to overrun the civilian population for control and take over. So the common argument is that these troops might be turned on the civilian population and many believe that this is the concern that the Founding Fathers were addressing. Given the original grievances that were sent to King George, particularly about having to house redcoats without being reimbursed and without consent, this is probably a very viable argument.

"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms,..." 

To many that would argue against the Founding Fathers meant this only to imply a standing army or standing guards, well, this portion of the Second Amendment is a big problem and it is always the fall back in every argument for un-infringed weapons ownership. It's pretty clear that the people are us, the every day average American. It's pretty clear the right they are referring to is ours, the people's, the everyday Average Joe and Jane.

"...shall not be infringed."

And there it is. It shall not be infringed. Really simple, right?

Now here's the stickler for me. I was raised surrounded by English and Literature teachers. The commas as they are written offer a unique grammatical analysis. Going back to around 4th and 5th grade grammar, like I stated in the very first blog of this series, the Founding Fathers wanted anyone, and I do mean anyone, to be able to read and understand the basic gist and form an opinion. This particular series of words is separated as if those first three parts of the sentence are separated parts. Try to think back to when you did sentence charting in elementary school where you broke down the subject and its descriptors, the action and the result. The noun and its adjectives, the verb, and the secondary noun. Then to compound sentences. This and that. This to me, is a compound sentence with two primary subjects...because of those commas. In proper English, there should have been an "and" someone once told me. However, in old proper English this was not required. In fact conjunctions were viewed as improper when the document was written, so our need for conjunctions as our language has and continues to develop may make the argument more complex in itself.

By proper English there would be two parts that could be broken into two sentences:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary for a free State, shall not be infringed."

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

A militia, just the word, implies that the Union has the right to maintain our freedoms with a group of civilian volunteers. That is the National Guard in a nutshell.

The right of the people is pretty cut and dry then also.

Unless the interpretation puts the primary focus on the "well regulated militia, being necessary".  Then the first sentence becomes the main right and the second sentence is a feeder to the first. In which case, we would call it the Freedom to have a Militia.  Another twisted view that resulted in crazed groups like the Michigan Militia (you remember the bomber of the Oklahoma Federal Building, right?), Ruby Ridge and the Branch Davidians.   I've never heard it called the Freedom to Militia, so personally, I find it hard to back up the idea that is what the Founding Fathers meant.

Now, here's a final food for thought.  The concept of gun control did not start until after the Civil War.  This is a fact.  There were rights of businesses to say that you couldn't bring you gun into their establishment and even towns.  But none of that ever started until after the Civil War.  The concept of gun control started with Jim Crow laws.  After the Civil War and Reconstruction ended, many of these laws were created to keep the freed slaves in their place.  A gun permit was needed and often former slaves were simply given whatever crazy reason the counties or cities could come up with to deny the permits.  It also allowed the racists to have public record of what weapons any one that opposed them had.  There is a very strong reason that the South is so tied with this freedom.  When you stifle a right, the opposition will raise its head.  While the initial effect of the Jim Crow laws prevented the freed slaves from owning weapons, it also meant that a lot of whites were told no for various ridiculous reasons too.  There was a case of a sheriff in Georgia who wouldn't let a man keep any of his rifles.  The story was that there was some debate between the two over a family heirloom, some rifle.  Eventually, voted into office as Sheriff, he simply made sure his distant cousin had no permits and seized all the guns, including the heirloom.

The history of gun control aside, it is difficult to decide how to view gun control.  The Founding Fathers certainly couldn't have imagined that we would create guns that could fire hundreds and hundreds of rounds per minute or automatic weapons or whatever.  Still, as anyone knows most gun owners are far more responsible with their weapons and generally are taught a stronger respect for the power of any weapon.  People who have never been around guns certainly have no use for them and probably don't see why anyone else would.  To some it just seems barbaric and still others view it as criminal only.  There's some truth to each of those, some extremism to each of them, and some place in the middle somewhere with compromise.  I have my opinion.

This whole debate started because a bunch of racists wanted to make sure that they had control of "free" people and still wanted to treat them like children, animals or just as lower and less.  Gun control is one of the last vestiges of racism.  Criminals will be criminals.  The UK has a higher murder rate per capita than the USA, and they allow no guns.  People kill with all kinds of weapons.  Gun control started with denying some people their rights for no reason and slipped through the cracks because of the vague wording of the Second Amendment.  OK, that's my opinion.  Next time, the Third Amendment....Good news, it will be a short one.