The interpretation of the Second Amendment to
the Constitution of the United States of America has been a topic of
controversy since its acceptance over two-hundred years ago. This controversy stems from the fact that the
amendment was written for reasons for the most part that do not have any
relevance today. One side argues the
amendment void, and the other takes it out of historical context so it portrays
the meaning they want. To understand
what the second Amendment means, one must
interpret the actual text, the historical background for its adoption,
and what it means today.
"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"(Nesbit, 309).
What many people see when they read this is, 'the right of the people to
keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed'.
One can say that it clearly states that the people do have a right to
have firearms. Who are 'the people'? Some argue that the people are just what it
says, citizens. "[M]any legal
historians have concluded that the right is corporate rather that
individual"(Hook, 30). Meaning that
the right is giving to the state government not to individual citizens. Others argue that it does give people the
right to bear arms, but only if you belong to a certain group.
This group is defined by the beginning preamble
to the Second Amendment, 'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the
security of a Free State'. This preamble
is set out to regulate the other half of the Amendment. What is a militia? "[A] militia is a body of men enrolled
for military service, and called out periodically for drill and exercises, but
serving full time only in emergency"(Hook, 25). This is talking about a State sponsored
militia that is well-regulated. Since
there are no State Militias do the people have any right to bear Arms? According to this amendment it is up to the
State to decide that. This whole
Amendment is guarantee's the state the right to have a well-regulated militia
in which the people can bear arms.
"[T]he
individuals right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency
of a well-regulated [state] militia.
Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of
weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected"(Nisbet, 316).
One cannot only
look at the text to understand the true meaning of the Second Amendment one
must also look into the historical reasons for its adoption.
The struggle with England and King George
scared the American people. They saw a
man corrupted by power and using his power to do evil. The founding fathers realized that one man
having so much power could be corrupting.
That is why they set up our political system with many checks and
balances so that one branch could not dominate the other two. The founding fathers feared that the one man
in control could turn out to be a tyrant.
For this reason, they feared to have a standing army of professionally
trained soldiers. The founding fathers
set up the Second Amendment for the possibility that the government would have
to be overthrown.
"[The Second
Amendment,] a statement perhaps aimed less at the right of the individual to
carry arms than to prohibit the establishment of a permanent army of
professional soldiers who might some day offer a threat to the civilian society
the envisaged"(Hook, 26).
So the second
Amendment was set up to protect the citizens from the possible oppression they
could undergo from their own government.
It was also set up to protect us from other countries.
At the time standing armies were hired soldiers
and mercenaries who for the most part fought for the money instead of the
country. The founding fathers believed
that state militias fighting for their country and freedom would be much more
effective in battle.
"A militia
is the only safe form of military power that a popular goverment can employ;
and because it is composed of the armed [citizens], it will prevail over the
mercenary professionals who man the armies of neighboring
monarchs"(Nesbit,318).
This is how we
won the Revolutionary War, by using state militias. The Second Amendment was important to the
people then, but now does it really have any meaning?
In modern times, we have what the founding
fathers feared the most, a national standing army with the President as
Commander. We have no State Militias
that could give any resistance if President Clinton tried to take military
control and ordered troops to enforce tyrannical laws. Fortunately, this has not happened.
The problem is that firearms have been a part
of this nation from the beginning. In
fact Congress at that time did not even feel it necessary to put an Amendment
in the Constitution because having a fire arm was as common as riding a
horse. "[T]his right had not been
questioned, for it was viewed as a traditional privilege lying outside the
Constitution..."(Hook, 30). Having
a firearm at that time was so common that they did not even think about having
to legalize it. Today, is a different
story. With more and more regulations on
firearms being passed, the Second Amendment is the only thing groups like the
NRA have to hold on to. Both sides need
to sit down and find a solution to this gun-control debate. Or one day this Amendment will be interpreted
at face value and fire arms in citizens hands will be a thing of the past,
unless of course it is in a state sponsored militia.
As time goes on the controversy of the Second
Amendment increases. When examined by
the actual text, the historical background, and how it applies today, the
Second Amendment has little if any relevance for modern society. Groups like the NRA and ACLU need to work
together to find a solution to this gun-control debate so in the end both
groups are satisfied with the results.
Sources
Nesbit, Lee. Gun Control Debate: You Decide.
New York: Prometheus Books, 1990.
Hook,
Donald. Gun Control: The Continuing Debate. Washington:
The Second Amendment Foundation,
1992.
No comments:
Post a Comment