I got the idea to write about writing about the meaning of the United States’ Second Amendment from an associate here on Tumblr, @the-shallow-philosopher, the comment space was too small to say it all! I thought it would best be understood by looking at what the current legal interpretation is, then counter that by looking at the Second Amendment linguistically, and finally I would like throw in some Historical elements that could give the intention of the amendment by writers.
But before that I will present the Second Amendment that is in the constitution. It is, “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.”
This text has currently been understood, in a jist, as the right has been that unless the bearing of any kind of weapon results in the danger of the free state, the restrictions are against the constitution. The kinds of weapons deemed dangerous to the free state has varied over the years but in general it has always been top of the line military equipment, explosives, weapons of mass destruction, highly defensive equipment, etc. This means that if a person has yet to show they are dangerous then the state cannot restrict their right to bear arms unless those arms are to be used solely to wage war against the state. The judicial interpretation of this policy is geared around the citizenry being about to defend itself against tyranny, after all the colonies did rebel against the British Crown’s taxation without representation.
The linguistic and logical meaning the text can be understood very easily if you understand hypothetical propositions. The first part of the sentence, (A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,) , is known as the antecedent. It is basically the “if” part of a hypothetical proposition. A reduction of this phrase could be condensed into the “if” form more concisely as, “if a well regulated is necessary to the security of a free state”. The second part of the sentence, (the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed), and is known as the consequent. It is basically the “then” part of a hypothetical proposition. A reduction of this phrase could be condensed into the “then” form more concisely as, “then the right to bear arms shall not be infringed”.
Now the important part to remember about the way the amendment is written, it assumes the antecedent is true. This will necessitate that the consequent to always be true. The question any logically thinking person would ask is, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State” part true?
Some historical elements will help clarify some of the ambiguity of the sentence look amendment. The American Colonies before the American Revolution, compared to the average citizens of Britain and there were some definitely good reasons for that. One practical reason was hunting but that is a much smaller reason to the main one. The colonies were far from a British army of any meaningful size. This left them vulnerable to foreign countries, Native American Tribes, Brigands, Pirates, highwaymen, and feuding regional factions. Militias in the colonies became a necessity to maintaining stability in the 17th and 18th century’s wild west during peacetime. During wartime, the militias became the first line of defense and often a vital way of supplementing the army to an even larger size, mostly acting as skirmishers, recon, etc.
During the American Revolution this system was ingrained in the Colonies and utilized by the revolutionary government. While the government did have a professional army the majority of the fighters were militia. After the war the Federal government had to disband this small army but there the reason’s for the militia demanded their retention. The Native American tribes that had treaties with Britain were not always inclined to continue the same arrangements with the fledging country as they did with the super power, Some of the acquisitions of America were contested by other countries that may want the territories back or even just capitalize on an easy opportunities. The militias were great for another reason; the Federal government didn’t pay for them!
The United States of America was broke. This is not the same kind of rhetoric that we here sprouting by today’s Debt Hawks, America really was broke. We had borrowed extensively and had no sizeable income, it turns out that starting a revolution based on being against taxation would have trouble making a government that could tax the public. The first federal tax in fact launched a rebellion, known as the Whiskey Rebellion. This information is so vitally important because in the times before the industrial revolution a large majority of the budget of any nation was its military. The next largest majority was made towards supporting infrastructure, which in turn could support the military. This has been true since the beginning of time and up until people started relying heavily on other people performing a particular task to insure they do not die, (like starve, dehydrate, freeze, etc). The militias gave the Federal government a way to recover from debt, keep the country secure, and to maintain high quality of potential soldiers.
The reason why the right to bear arms was necessary for these militias is that most state militias did not provide the soldiers with anything besides provisions while they were training or on duty, nothing else. This meant the citizens had to provide their own equipment. This when added with the militia acts of 1792, which among other things required all males from the age 18-45 to join a militia, gives a lot of evidence that the founding fathers were being fiscally tight fisted while exploiting free labor, true capitalist.
However America has deviated from this model drastically. The American Military is second to none against any other state in the world. In fact our naval spending alone is equal 47% of the world’s total naval expenditure. The closest institution we have to the militia system is the Reserves and the National Guard, which is volunteer and ideally speaking part time work. But even with these organizations, the equipment is provided for by the state. This raises the question does the right to bear arms contributed to a well-regulated militia or even more importantly, does the right to bear arms contribute the security of a free state? If this is not the case then does any kind of restriction come in conflict with the second amendment?
I just want to throw out that this is a logical approach. Do not spout that because the Supreme Court has deemed it this way it is the correct way. This does not make any rational sense and I’ll show a very good example, the Supreme Court had validated slavery on several important cases, does that make it right? I am focused on right and wrong, not legal or illegal.
