A Rational Look at the Second Amendment

by Tom Rhodes 2/22/2018

It states: “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.”

OK, let's break that down and translate to more modern English. For a state (nation) to be secure and free such a state needs a military (at the time of the writing the Militia was the defacto military, equivalent to today’s National guard). Now the comma, in this case it's meaning is “therefore.” The concluding clause is clear and concise statement that means the same today as then. The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. The people being all individual citizens not the government or military, the same as every where else it is used in the Bill of Rights. What makes our Constitution and Bill of Rights unique, is it doesn't list the privileges of citizens, rather it puts restrictions on the state.

The period writings of our founding fathers at the time are consistent. The founding fathers knew that states can and do become tyrannical over time. They had just fought a revolution to throw off their former tyrannical state. So they included the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights because they knew that the state must have a military to be secure (mostly from other nations). The primary reason for it was to restrict the government and insure that people retain not just the right to be armed but the means to overthrow the government should the states actions necessitate such an action.

In summary the second amendment states that because the state must maintain a military for security of the nation, the state cannot impose impediments to the people's right to have arms to overthrow the state, should it become tyrannical.

This idea is unique among all Nations in History. The idea that the masses have the right to the means and tools of overthrowing the state, and the government cannot take away or infringe upon that right. No other nation tolerates any idea except the ruling elite have control over the use of force and the masses should be disarmed or limited in arms so that the state can always have control over the masses.

Liberty is not safe and because we have liberty, and the presumption of innocence, bad people will have access to arms. Such is the cost of liberty. The alternative is some ruling elite, not the people, get to decide who is/isn't armed and what arms they can have. When somebody says shit about what other countries do, the reply is, “This is the USA, we don't give a flying fuck at a doughnut what or how other countries make their laws. Here in the USA we've restricted those in power from infringing on the We the People's right to the tools and means to kick the ruling elite out if they get too uppity.