U.S. Ctizens Have And Ought To Have The Right To Bear And Keep Arms

I will proceed to give my argument:The Second Amendment: “Because a well-regulated state militia is necessary for the security of a free people, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed by the federal government. ” [1]This amendment, even among conservatives, has been commonly isolated from the original intent and meaning. Does this provision guarantees the right of the people to keep and bear arms without interference of the government? To determine this we ought to (1) look at what the authors had to say, (2) look at what the authors' contemporaries had to say, (3) look at what the courts, during that time period, had to say, (4) and determine the historical context of the words used within the Second Amendment. The Founders Support This View:The Founders definitely made their views apparent:1. Richard Henry Lee: “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. ” [2]2. Samuel Adams: “The said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to … prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms. ” [3]3. Patrick Henry: “the great object is that every man be armed…. Everyone who is able may have a gun. ” [4]4. In the Virginia Convention, George Mason drafter of the Virginian Bill of Rights said that “to disarm the people -- that was the best and most effective way to enslave them. ”5. James Madison, the father of the constitution, makes clear in Federalist No. 46 that the fact that Americans are armed, is an advantage that America has over every other nation. [5]Early Commentaries Support This View:The earliest American constitutional commentaries concur with the ideas of the founders and the sentiments of the true meaning of the Second Amendment. 1. Joseph Story in his “Commentaries on the Constitution”, an extremely important and influential work, considered the Second Amendment “the palladium of the liberties of the republic,”.2. William Rawle’s “View of the Constitution” published in 1825 expounded the intention of the Second Amendment when he said, “The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by a rule of construction be conceived to give Congress a power to disarm the people. ” Early Congress Supports This View:Subsequent legislation in the Second Congress supports the interpretation that the Second Amendment creates an individual right, rather than a “select militia“. In the Militia Act of 1792, the second Congress defined the “militia of the United States” to include almost every free adult male in the United States. In light of this, there can be little doubt that when Congress and the people of that era spoke of “militia”, they spoke of the traditional concept of an armed populace - one where every citizen was capable of bearing arms, not to any formal group, such as the National Guard. It is from this militia - an armed citizenry - that appropriate measures might create a “well regulated militia” of individuals trained in their duties and responsibilities as citizen owners of firearms. Early Courts Support This View:In Nunn v. State, the 1837 Georgia Supreme Court held that Georgia’s ban on the sale of pistols was unconstitutional as the Second Amendment provided “ the right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not merely such as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in on, in the slightest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying of a well regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free state”. This State Supreme Court decision enforces, among many other examples, my contention that a “well regulated militia” was a consequence of allowing the populace of America to be armed. Conclusion:In conclusion, the individual rights interpretation of the Founders, the First and Second Congresses, the Courts, and the early constitutional commentaries gives full meaning to the words of the Second Amendment. The framers of the Bill of Rights consistently used the words “right of the people” (as found in the Second Amendment) to reflect individual rights of American citizens - just as the “right of the people” to peaceably assemble and the “right of the people” against unreasonable searches, etc. If the Second Amendment was intended as anything but a right given to the people, then the Framers, in effort to remain consistent, would have distinguished this, in the same way they did in the Tenth Amendment. As discussed earlier, the “militia” itself referred to a concept of universally armed citizenry, not to any specifically organized unit. When the framers referred to an organized unit they consistently used terms like “select militia” and distinguished this from the universal, citizen based “militia” [7] Entities like the National Guard are specifically set apart from the constitutional militia, as recognized by 10 U. S. C. § 331(a). The argument is usually made that the first clause of the amendment (“Because a well-regulated state militia is necessary for the security of a free people“) means that the intention was to keep arms into a specialized reserve corps - something like the National Guard. This is simply not true. Today the state militia is the body of citizens which, under U. S. Code Title 10, section 31, includes “all able-bodied males at least of 17 years of age and under 45 years of age who have [made] a declaration of intent to become citizens. ” The Right To Bear Arms Is A Necessary Bulwark Against Tyranny:The power of an armed citizenry has been the bane of tyrants since the beginning of man. As James Madison pointed out, corrupt governments fear a well-armed populace. This is seen in our own country’s history. When British troops seized a militia arsenal (out of fear, I might add) in September 1774, 60,000 citizens took up arms against the tyranny of the British monarchy - and, thus the American Revolution was born. The American Revolution is the prime historical example of (1) how a revolution ought to be handled and (2) the power of armed citizens. The American Revolution was not won by a disarmed and docile people, it was won by the strength of its citizens, the power of their black powder muskets, and the grace of God. Sources:[1] The U. S. Constitution[2] The Right to Keep and Bear Arms, a report from the Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution (Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, February 1982) p.5[3] Ibid. , pg. 6[4] Ibid. , pg. 5[5] The Federalist Papers[6] ] The Right to Keep and Bear Arms, a report from the Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution (Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, February 1982)[7] Richard Henry Lee, in his pamphlet “Letters from the Federal farmer to the Republican”, Lee states: The Constitution ought to “guard against a select militia,” (notice the wording of select militia).