“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.”
Of the first Ten Amendments, none have received more attention than the Second. Discussions generally revolve around the concept of a “well regulated militia.” It’s the type of dialogue that academics love because it allows them to fantasies about sitting around in togas having elaborate intellectual discussions about what the Framers meant.
The fact is quite simply that no one knows – unless you were the fly on the wall or part of the 1st Congress – why it was written as it was. All of the “cerebral horsepower” directed at the subject is no more than self-flagellation, and an opportunity for self-aggrandizement.
Now, I make no claim to clairvoyance, nor am I a Constitutional Scholar, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express so I’ll give my analysis!
There are two distinct thoughts embraced by the Second Amendment; (a) a well regulated militia* and (b) the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. These are two independent clauses, which the Framers could have easily separated by a period and not a comma. Yet they chose to modify “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed**” with their recognition that a militia is necessary to the security of a free State. Why?
1. The Continental Army was formed on June 14, 1775 prior to adoption of the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776 and well before Congress approved 12 Articles to amend the Constitution. Therefore, one must assume the concept of an Army was well established in the minds of the Framers. In drafting Article IV, which became the Second Amendment, the Framers refer to a militia and not an Army; a significant distinction in my view.
2. Furthermore, James Madison advanced the 12 Articles to amend the U.S. Constitution because there was a genuine concern by the States that the Constitution, as originally adopted, could lead to domestic tyranny.
The combined effect of items 1 and 2 suggest the Framers and the States wished to retain the ability to call on its citizens to stand up a force capable of defending its rights and freedoms, should it become necessary to defend them from foreign or domestic threats. Nothing is written in the Second Amendment that is mutually exclusive; it is all complementary. The existence of a National Guard does not preclude the right to keep and bear arms by the people.
Another common argument, which creeps in when discussing the 2nd Amendment, is embodied in the ridiculous statement published in Recoil Magazine by its former Editor Jerry Tsai:
the MP71A is unavailable to civilians and for good measure. We all know that’s technology no civvies should ever get to lay their hands on. This is a purpose-built weapon with no sporting applications to speak of.
Nowhere in the Second Amendment is there reference to the types or quantities of arms “the people” may keep or bear; in fact, if you read historical accounts, biographies and autobiographies of the Framers, and many State Legislators of the time, you walk away with a sense that had they had access to MP7A1s, Kalashnikovs and 100-round magazines they would treasure them as much as their liquor and women.
When Mr. Tsai states “…We all know that’s technology no civvies should ever get to lay their hands on…” you have a clear indicator he lacked respect for the 2nd Amendment rights of his readers, and just as importantly his advertisers. Moreover, Jerry Tsai’s words play into the hands of those that live to infringe on 2nd Amendment rights; adding fuel to the fire of more gun control.
I will also add that Jerry Tsai’s comments are a vulgar display of ignorance. It was apparent that Mr. Tsai lacked understanding of the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934 and its amendments, which does not prohibit the ownership of automatic weapons.
Let there be no doubt, The Second Amendment is under attack, and will probably continue to be so, whether out of ignorance and irrational fear, or a genuine desire to subjugate. Be ever vigilant! However, for an editor of a magazine that purports to advance knowledge and familiarization with technologies embodied by the 2nd Amendment to make statements, like those credited to Jerry Tsai, is repulsive and worthy of toilet reading.
I sincerely hope Recoil Magazine will regroup and deliver on its promise to be a premier publication.
-Sal Palma
twobirdsflyingpub.wordpress.com
*Note that in the original text, militia is not capitalized and for that reason, I believe it refers to the act of assembling a group of people for defense and not a specific military structure or organization.
**I use “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” as the principal clause because the Bill of Rights is rightfully people centric.
***There are numerous scholarly works written on the 2nd Amendment this is but one “THE SECOND AMENDMENT: A GUARD FOR OUR FUTURE SECURITY[1]” by Andrew M. Wayment – published in the Idaho Law Review
