document: The best clues to the meaning of the key words and phrases are in debates in the First Congress of the United States . The Members of that Congress were the authors of the Second Amendment . A constitutional amendment calling for the prohibition of standing armies in time of peace was proposed by six state ratifying conventions . Virginia 's version , later copied by New York and North Carolina , brought together three elements in one article -- affirmation of a right to bear arms , reliance on state militia , and opposition to a standing army : `` That the people have a right to keep and bear arms ; that a well-regulated militia , composed of the body of the people trained to arms , is the proper , natural , and safe defense of a free state ; that standing armies , in times of peace , are dangerous to liberty , and therefore ought to be avoided ... . '' The purpose was to limit the power of the new Congress to establish a standing army , and instead to rely on state militias under command of governors . The Constitution was ratified without adopting any of the scores of proposed amendments . But in several states ratification came only with solemn pledges that amendments would follow . Soon after the First Congress met , James Madison , elected as a congressman from Virginia on the basis of such a pledge , proposed a number of amendments resembling yet different from articles proposed by states . These eventually became the Bill of Rights . In the version of the arms amendment he presented , Madison dropped mention of a standing army and added a conscientious objector clause . `` The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed , a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country , but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person . '' In this version , `` bearing arms '' must mean `` to render military service , '' or why else would there have to be an exemption for religious reasons ? What right must not be infringed ? The right of the people to serve in the militia . This militia amendment was referred to a congressional committee , and came out of committee in this form : `` A well regulated militia , composed of the body of the people , being the best security of a free state , the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed ; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms . '' Two significant changes had been made : first , the phrase `` to render military service in person '' was replaced by the phrase `` to bear arms , '' again indicating that they are two ways to say the same thing ; second , an explanation was added , that the `` militia '' is `` composed of the body of the people . '' The House then debated this new version in committee of the whole and , surprisingly , considering the subsequent history of the provision , never once did any member mention the private uses of arms , for self-protection , or hunting , or any other personal purpose . The debate focused exclusively on the conscientious objector provision . Eventually the committee 's version was narrowly approved . The Senate in turn gave it its final form , briefer , unfortunately more elliptical , and with the exemption for conscientious objectors deleted : `` 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 . '' Certain explanations were lost or buried in this legislative process : that the right to bear arms meant the right to serve in the militia ; that just about everybody was included in the militia ; and that the amendment as a whole sought to minimize if not eliminate reliance on a standing army by emphasizing the role of the state militia , which would require that everyone be ready to be called to serve . But what about the private right `` to keep and bear arms , '' to own a gun for self-defense and hunting ? Is n't that clearly protected by the amendment ? Did n't just about everyone own a gun in 1791 ? Would n't that right go without saying ? Yes , of course , it would go without saying , especially then when there were no organized police forces and when hunting was essential to the food supply . But such facts tell us almost nothing relevant to our question . Almost everyone also owned a dog for the same purposes . The Constitution nevertheless says nothing about the undeniable right to own a dog . There are uncountable numbers of rights not enumerated in the Constitution . These rights are neither denied nor disparaged by not being raised to the explicit constitutional level . All of them are constitutionally subject to regulation . The right to bear arms protected in the Second Amendment has to do directly with `` a well-regulated militia . '' More evidence of the connection can be found in the Militia Act of 1792 . `` Every free able-bodied white male citizen '' -LRB- it was 1792 , after all -RRB- was required by the act to `` enroll '' in the militia for training and active service in case of need . When reporting for service , every militiaman was required to provide a prescribed rifle or musket , and ammunition . Here we see the link of the private and public aspects of bearing arms . The expectation was that every man would have his own firearms . But the aspect that was raised to the level of constitutional concern was the public interest in those arms . What does this mean for the question of gun control today ? Well , for example , it means that Congress has the constitutional power to enact a Militia Act of 1992 , to require every person who owns a gun or aspires to own one to `` enroll '' in the militia . In plain 1990s English , if you want to own a gun , sign up with the National Guard . Requiring every gun owner to register with the National Guard -LRB- as we require 18-year-olds to register with the Selective Service -RRB- would provide the information about gun owners sought by the Brady and Staggers bills , and much more . Standards could be set for purchase or ownership of guns , and penalties could be established . Restoring a 200-year-old understanding of the Constitution may be difficult , but there is n't time to dawdle . Americans now own more than 200 million guns , and opinion polls show Americans want gun control . Why not avail ourselves of the Second Amendment remedy ? Call in the militia , which is , after all , `` composed of the body of the people . '' -- Mr. Goldwin is a resident scholar in constitutional studies at the American Enterprise Institute .
extractive_keyphrases: gun control constitutional amendment gun owners second amendment congress private right arms