THE MEANING OF THE 2ND AMENDMENT
By: SCRIBE
I have researched the issue of OUR
UNALIENABLE RIGHTS long and hard. According to Our Founding Fathers, the
Government DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO TAKE AWAY ANY UNALIENABLE RIGHT,
BECAUSE THESE RIGHTS DO NOT COME FROM GOVERNMENT IN THE FIRST PLACE!!! The
Second Amendment Translated into today's terminology reads: "A Well Armed
Citizenry, being necessary to Safeguard Our Freedoms and to Overthrow an out of
Control or Tyrannical Government, The RIGHT of EVERY PERSON to OWN and to CARRY
FIREARMS equal to those of the Military, SHALL NEVER BE DENIED or REGULATED IN
ANY WAY." How can I support such a
statement? Read on:
The Meaning of the 2nd Amendment
The Second Amendment to the
Yet, many today say that the 2nd Amendment isn’t about individuals
owning guns. It’s about the state having guns. It says you’re only
allowed guns if you’re part of the militia. The 2nd Amendment is about
the National Guard. It says it right in the amendment. It’s for the
militia.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a
The National Guard didn’t exist when the 2nd Amendment was
written. It came into existence over a century later. What? I said the 2nd
Amendment isn’t about the National Guard. The Bill of Rights was adopted
in 1791. The act that created the National Guard wasn’t enacted until
1903. I can tell you that when the Founding Fathers used the word militia, it
meant something different to them than what it means to
many today.
What is the militia?
You’ve got to understand what the militia is. In May of 1792, five
months after the adoption of the 2nd Amendment, the Militia Act was passed.
That act distinguished between the enrolled (or unorganized) militia and the
organized militia. Before the passing of that act, there was only the enrolled
(or unorganized) militia, which was the body of all able-bodied men between the
ages of 17 and 44, inclusively, and it is that militia to which the 2nd
Amendment refers. It couldn’t refer to the organized militia because it
didn’t exist yet. The 2nd Amendment was to ensure that this body of
citizens is armed and that’s why the Founding Fathers thought to place it
in the Bill of Rights. Legally, both militias still exist.
Read the Militia act. It will explain what the militia meant to the
Founding Fathers. It will also show that the 2nd Amendment came before the
Federal law that created the organized militia, and provide evidence that what
they referred to as the enrolled militia—the body of citizens—were
allowed to arm themselves. In fact, read
this quote from the New Hampshire State Constitution written in 1784, 7 years
BEFORE the adoption of the 2nd Amendment and the passing of the Militia Act:
"Composition of the Militia - The Unorganized Militia shall consist of all
able-bodied residents of the State who are 18 years of age or older, who are,
or have declared their intention to become, citizens of the United
States".
Some may say that all that happened 200 years ago, that the Militia
means something else today. It means the military. But even if we decide the
word means something new to us, you can’t use the new definition to
change the intent of the Amendment. The Supreme Court has ruled that the words
in the Constitution mean what the Founding Fathers said they meant, and we
can’t go changing or amending the Constitution by giving new meanings or
new shades of meaning to the words. And, if you think about it, it makes sense;
otherwise, our rights really mean nothing. Congress or any other governing body
can deny you the right to free speech, freedom of religion, a trial by jury, or
whatever else it wanted just by claiming the words now have a new meaning. An
oppressive government could change the Constitution without ever having to go
through the bothersome ritual of submitting it to us, the people, for our
approval. And, in the end, the Constitution and, in particular, the Bill of Rights are there for our protection, not for the
benefit of the government or those who run it.
Why we don’t need the 2nd Amendment
But even if the 2nd Amendment referred only to the National Guard, the
state police, or some other uniformed military or police organization,
we’d still have the right to keep and bear arms. We don’t need the
2nd Amendment. Why? Because the Founding Fathers believed we had that right.
They spoke about it and wrote about it. And that’s enough. Wrong, you
say? Can you find anything in the 2nd Amendment, or any other part of the
Constitution that says an individual can’t have arms? The question is not
whether you think the Constitution allows individuals to carry guns but whether
or not there’s anything in it that says they can’t? Please
understand that the Bill of Rights is not the source of our rights. It’s
not even a complete list of our rights.
Natural Rights
The Founding Fathers did not believe we got our rights from the Bill of
Rights. Or, that our rights came from or where at the pleasure of government,
able to be granted or taken away at a moments notice. Nor did they believe they
came about as a result of being American, Christian, of European decent. They
believed everyone had these rights regardless of where they lived. They called
them Natural Rights. Where these rights were not allowed, they believed they
still existed, but were denied. It’s a question as to whether or not our
rights exist apart from government. In a country where children have no civil
rights, do they still have a right not to be molested? Do women in countries
where they have a second-citizen status have the right not to be abused by
their husbands, even if the government won’t protect them? Then is it too
much of a stretch for you to understand that the Founding Fathers believed
everyone has the right to free speech, freedom of religion, the right to fair trials...?
It’s a question as to whether the rights of a citizen are at the pleasure
of the government, or if they have them, but they are being denied. Take it a
step further. If the government passed a law tomorrow that said we didn’t
have the right to free speech, or the right to free worship, or freedom of the
press, would those rights no longer exist, or would they be simply denied? If
the Constitution is amended depriving us of our rights, do those rights cease
to exist? The answer, according to the Founding Fathers, is NO; we would still
have those rights. We’re just being denied them. And this is the way we
must look at the Constitution. In reality, rights are only an ideal held in
one's mind. But the Founding Fathers believed they existed and that’s how
this country was set up. Rights are something that comes with being human. The
Founders never believed we got them from the government. If and when the
Then why have a Bill of Rights, you ask? Many have asked this very same
question. Men like Alexander Hamilton asked it. He and many others thought
having a Bill of rights was dangerous. They were afraid that the existence of a
Bill of Rights as a part of our Constitution implied that the government not
only had the right to change them, but that any rights not listed there were
fair game for the government to deny. And, as a matter of fact, that’s
exactly what has happened. The government seems to have set itself up to be an
interpreter of our rights; it acts as if it is also the source of our rights,
and whatever rights weren’t mentioned in the Bill of Rights, the
government has seen fit to declare exist only at its discretion. Thus the reasons for the 9th and 10th Amendments. It’s
important to understand what they say and know why they are written the way
they are because they tie in with how the Founding Fathers viewed our rights
and how they expected us to view them. They were put there to quell the fears
of men like
Then why do we have a Bill of Rights? Because even though Hamilton and
others feared having one, most of the Founding Fathers were sure that without
one the government would eventually take all of our rights. If the Congress or
even the Supreme Court decides the 2nd Amendment only refers to formal military
organizations, we still have the right to keep and bear arms, because the
Founding Fathers considered it a natural right. And if you don’t believe
it, read what the Founding Fathers said in their papers, their letters, and
their debates in both Congress and the state legislatures. Think about it.
Weapons have always been important. In
What the Founders said
"Arms in the hands of individual citizens may be used at individual
discretion...in private self-defense". That was said by John Adams in
‘A Defense Of The Constitution’. "The
Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the
What about the Father of our Country, and first President, George
Washington? He said: "Firearms stand next in importance to the
Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and
keystone under independence. From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present
day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to ensure peace, security
and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable. The very
atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference—they
deserve a place of honor with all that's good". That was from a speech he
made to Congress on January 7, 1790. And, in response to a proposal for gun
registration,
"To disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way
to enslave them". That was by George Mason when the Constitution was being
debated. And just who was George Mason? He’s the most underrated and
unsung of all the Founding Fathers. Jefferson drew on him when composing the Declaration
of Independence; his doctrine of inalienable rights was not only the basis for
the Virginia Bill of Rights in 1776, but other states used them as the models
for their own Bill of Rights, and James Madison drew upon them freely while
composing the Bill of Rights for the United States. Even though a Southerner,
Mason recognized the evils of slavery and the fact that slaves were entitled to
the same rights as the rest of humanity. He also feared the Constitution
because it didn’t do a better job of limiting the powers of the Federal
government. He believed local government should be strong and the Federal
government kept weak. He firmly believed in the power, the rights, and the
integrity of the individual. He was the most vocal of the Founders on individual
rights, and the other Founding Fathers recognized him as a force to be reckoned
with. Without him, I can guarantee you that the
Defense against tyranny
Here’s a quote by Elbridge Gerry, a representative to Congress
from
Here's one more, by James Madison, the guy who wrote the Constitution
and actually put together the Bill of Rights: "The highest number to which
a standing army can be carried in any country does not exceed one hundredth
part of the souls, or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms.
This portion would not yield, in the
Conclusion
I think you can see how the Founding Fathers felt about the right of
individuals to have weapons. In fact, this whole debate over the right to arms
is a recent one. In the last century, Americans would have been as amazed to
find their right to have weapons a subject of debate as they would to have
found their right to free speech or religion debated. There was no question to
them, or to the Founders, that the right to keep and bear arms was one of the
most fundamental—perhaps the most fundamental—of all civil rights.
Are any of the Founders on record saying they don’t believe individuals
should have guns? None! Not a one! They
would have been rode out of town on a rail if they had! So, in light of what we
have discovered, let's translate the Second Amendment to today's terminology:
1776 Language: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security
of a
2002 Language: A Well Armed Citizenry, being necessary to Safeguard Our
Freedoms and to Overthrow an out of Control or Tyrannical Government, The RIGHT
of EVERY PERSON to OWN and to CARRY FIREARMS equal to those of the Military,
SHALL NEVER BE DENIED, Nor REGULATED or REGISTERED IN ANY WAY.
SCRIBE
© 2003 - 2004 Northwdsnh