On the Second Amendment...
There is no part of the United States Constitution more misrepresented than the Second Amendment.
Those who seek to justify laws infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms have advanced every sort of red herring imaginable, from the contention that "well regulated" grants the government the power to limit the right to keep and bear arms (a completely specious argument given the context and purpose of the Bill of Rights), to the positioning of punctuation.
For those not immediately familiar with the Amendment, it is provided below in its entirety:
"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."
Those who wish to use the Second Amendment as a cudgel against the right of the people to keep and bear arms predictably ignore the second half, or what is know as the "operative clause".
So let's deconstruct the first half of the Amendment, the "prefatory clause".
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,..."
As mentioned earlier, some claim that "well regulated" means that the government has the right to regulate the militia, and, by extension, arms.
Without so much as investigating the actual meaning of "well regulated", we can soundly dismiss that contention, as the entire purpose of the Bill of Rights was to placate the anti-Federalists who were concerned about the concentration of power in a central government. Nonetheless, since we are open-minded and intellectually honest, we can consider the meaning of "well regulated".
Simply put, "well regulated" means: "in proper working order". In the context of a militia, it would mean: properly trained an equipped. In Federalist 29, Publius discusses the importance of a "well regulated militia", and in the context provided, the meaning is clear.
What then, is the "militia"? To quote George Mason, a co-author of the Second Amendment, the militia is "the people, save for a few elected officials." Another common line of attack is to conflate the "militia" with organizations such as the National Guard. This couldn't be further from the truth, and even if the intent of the Militia Act(s) was to do so, it would require that the Constitution be amended to reflect the change. No, the militia is and always will be the people.
This is usually where anti-liberty folks stop worrying about the meaning of words and move on to the placement of commas.
What they are ignoring (and what is often ignored) is the second half of the prefatory clause "...being necessary to the security of a free state,..."
What is a free state?
Those that argue that the Second Amendment was designed to protect slaveowners from their slaves never seem eager to answer this question.
I submit that a free state is one in which the power to govern is justly derived from the consent of the governed.
Given that, one must recognize that consent is the critical element necessary for the power to govern to be justly derived.
For consent to be legitimate, it must be extended freely and - just as importantly, if not more so - it must be capable of being withdrawn.
The Founders recognized that revocation of consent can be as peaceful as an election, or as violent as a revolution.
Thus, the militia (i.e. the people) secure a free state by maintaining their ability to revoke their consent. Furthermore, any law that infringes on their ability to revoke their consent, by any means, is inherently unjust and has no place in a free society.
Otherwise, it is no different than saying "You have the right to vote, but you can't have a ballot."
Please share your thoughts below! If you have a friend or family member that would beg to differ, please share the link to this post!
Those who seek to justify laws infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms have advanced every sort of red herring imaginable, from the contention that "well regulated" grants the government the power to limit the right to keep and bear arms (a completely specious argument given the context and purpose of the Bill of Rights), to the positioning of punctuation.
For those not immediately familiar with the Amendment, it is provided below in its entirety:
"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."
Those who wish to use the Second Amendment as a cudgel against the right of the people to keep and bear arms predictably ignore the second half, or what is know as the "operative clause".
So let's deconstruct the first half of the Amendment, the "prefatory clause".
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,..."
As mentioned earlier, some claim that "well regulated" means that the government has the right to regulate the militia, and, by extension, arms.
Without so much as investigating the actual meaning of "well regulated", we can soundly dismiss that contention, as the entire purpose of the Bill of Rights was to placate the anti-Federalists who were concerned about the concentration of power in a central government. Nonetheless, since we are open-minded and intellectually honest, we can consider the meaning of "well regulated".
Simply put, "well regulated" means: "in proper working order". In the context of a militia, it would mean: properly trained an equipped. In Federalist 29, Publius discusses the importance of a "well regulated militia", and in the context provided, the meaning is clear.
What then, is the "militia"? To quote George Mason, a co-author of the Second Amendment, the militia is "the people, save for a few elected officials." Another common line of attack is to conflate the "militia" with organizations such as the National Guard. This couldn't be further from the truth, and even if the intent of the Militia Act(s) was to do so, it would require that the Constitution be amended to reflect the change. No, the militia is and always will be the people.
This is usually where anti-liberty folks stop worrying about the meaning of words and move on to the placement of commas.
What they are ignoring (and what is often ignored) is the second half of the prefatory clause "...being necessary to the security of a free state,..."
What is a free state?
Those that argue that the Second Amendment was designed to protect slaveowners from their slaves never seem eager to answer this question.
I submit that a free state is one in which the power to govern is justly derived from the consent of the governed.
Given that, one must recognize that consent is the critical element necessary for the power to govern to be justly derived.
For consent to be legitimate, it must be extended freely and - just as importantly, if not more so - it must be capable of being withdrawn.
The Founders recognized that revocation of consent can be as peaceful as an election, or as violent as a revolution.
Thus, the militia (i.e. the people) secure a free state by maintaining their ability to revoke their consent. Furthermore, any law that infringes on their ability to revoke their consent, by any means, is inherently unjust and has no place in a free society.
Otherwise, it is no different than saying "You have the right to vote, but you can't have a ballot."
Please share your thoughts below! If you have a friend or family member that would beg to differ, please share the link to this post!
Comments
Post a Comment