Original Meaning Of The Second Amendment To The U.S. Constitution

There continues to be arguments between the pro-gun groups and the anti-gun lobby about the intended purpose and meaning of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The anti-gun lobby argues that the use of the word “militia”, as mentioned in the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States indicates the keeping of arms was meant only to provide for a standing army in times of an invasion by another county. During my college years, I too was indoctrinated into this line of thought.

What I wasn’t told then, and what the anti-gun politicians go out of there way to hide for fear of weakening their stronghold on misconceived public perception, are the real thoughts behind the words of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Before starting this line of thought, keep in mind that the Second Amendment is the only amendment that refers to an object—weapons. Presumably this indicates how important it was to the founders that the ownership of guns was as important as any other right enshrined in the first ten Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Perhaps the right to keep and bear arms is more important than most of our other rights if we are to believe the Bill of Rights is prioritized.

Instead of using our own current interpretations of what the framers of the Second Amendment were thinking, a better insight may come from looking at the framers’ actual words. This way we can at least establish the foundation on which to understand the framers’ intent, not our interpretations.

The following are the thoughts of the framers at the time they were arguing for the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as they relate to the militia and the keeping private arms (bold type added to emphasize author’s intent):

“The great object is, that every man be armed…Every one who is able may have a gun.”
--Patrick Henry

“Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”
--Tench Coxe, Feb. 20, 1788

“Whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.”
--Richard Henry Lee, February, 1788

“Whereas civil-rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and…might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.”
--Tench Coxe, remarking on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution

“That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms…”
--Samuel Adams

“Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?”
--Patrick Henry

There have also been numerous attempts to compare the somewhat archaic weapons at the time of the ratification of the Second Amendment, to the AR-style “assault weapons” of today. Typically the argument against the AR-style sporting rifle is that the founders had no idea about these weapons and surely would not have wanted them included in the class of weapons protected by the Second Amendment.

It’s true that the founders probably never envisioned our country’s weaponry as it currently is today. It’s also true that when they wrote the First Amendment protecting freedom of speech they never envisioned the existence of the internet, e-mails, television, radio, or computers and hard drives to store the written or spoken word.

Under this premise, we could also assume that they never intended speech to ever be disseminated via our current methods. Therefore it could be argued that the people today must be content in keeping their communications to that of the methods at the time—a printing press, and shouting—if they are to be protected under the First Amendment. We can all see how ludicrous this last comparison is, yet is it any more ludicrous to think the founders never had the intention of applying the meaning of the Second Amendment to future evolution of arms?

Those in favor of the evolution of our means of free speech are especially quick to use these evolved forms of speech to disseminate their thoughts on how our Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States should somehow be limited. These same people continue to add their two cents to what types of weapons the founders felt should be protected—or not.

The following statements make clear that the idea of the time was simple; that the citizens always have a greater ability than any standing army to defend themselves or the country.

“The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sward; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.”
--Noah Webster, 1787

“No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance?”
--Thomas Jefferson

“…but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights…"
--Alexander Hamilton speaking on the topic of standing armies

“…most attractive to Americans, the possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave, it being the ultimate means by which freedom was to be preserved.”
--James Burgh

“The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of the republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally…enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”
--Joseph Story, Supreme Court Justice, 1833

And more recently:

“The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard, against the tyranny which now appears remote in America but which historically has proven to be always possible.”
--Hubert H. Humphrey, Senator, Vice President, 22 October, 1959

At the time the founding fathers put our constitution together, while there were no AR style rifles available, they did allow for weapons that were more powerful than the military’s weapons of the time. Their intent was clear—to be armed well enough that no country could take us over. Our founding fathers  knew full well the tyrannical nature of some governments, and wanted us to be armed as well as any government—even our own.

Based on this mindset it could be argued that they would have even intended that we all have fully automatic weapons to keep up with those of the current militaries from around the world.

Even if guns in the hands of irresponsible criminals result in some illegal casualties, it is a far cry from the genocidal murder committed by some governments in countries with gun bans.

Would the Ugandans in Rwanda have been better able to defend against the government’s mass murder if they were armed? Instead of being able to defend themselves from the new party taking over the government, there was a genocidal mass slaughter in 1994. In approximately 100 days over 500,000—or approximately 20% --of the population was wiped out. Some estimates put the death toll at over 1,000,000.

Speaking as to what it would be like if our Second Amendment rights were ever dissolved, Patrick Henry mused, “O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, where with you could defend yourselves, are gone…”

All of this is critically important to remember if we ever elect a President who has shown via voting records, and his underlying subtly stated messages, that he is willing to dismantle any portion of the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. It is even more important if, at the same time, he is a President decreasing funding to our U.S. Military, weakening our power over foreign invasion and our likelihood we could be invaded by another country with no means of defending ourselves. And while many politicians lie, if a President ever tells you he want to “fundamentally transform our nation’’—when those very fundamentals are what have made us the greatest nation—it would be wise to do what it takes to preserve our arms, just in case he gets to wave his magic wand, put the unsuspecting public under his spell, and make that change.

It is our strong supply of individual private firearms, not the military, that has deterred many nations from invading our homeland. Let’s not fall victim to the smooth-talking politicians while they methodically disarm our population, then wait to see what happens.

If you enjoy freedom of speech, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, or any other liberties in this country, it is critical that you not only thank those who fight for Second Amendment rights, but to support them yourself. For without the full and unfettered force of the Second Amendment it is a matter of when, not if, your other private rights will be dissolved. As stated so often, it is true that the Second Amendment exists as a protection for all the other amendments.

In the next article we’ll take a look at the origin and the original birthplace of our Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.