Gun rights and the Second Amendment
The second amendment protects gun rights, but no one has made clear why it’s in the Bill of Rights. We have ideological explanations that promote a specific political agenda, and they end up creating confusion around this controversial topic. So, we’re going to shed light on this matter and find out what the truth is.
Today, I want to speak to you about gun rights and the second amendment. I know this is a controversial topic, especially when news of shootings in the US is back in the spotlight. However, it’s an important matter when we see this right protected in the constitution. And then, many people ask themselves why it’s there. That’s what I want to discuss here.
I want to do it by examining the second amendment, but also considering the broader context that surrounded it when framers incorporated the Bill of Rights to the constitution. So, I’m going to start with a quick look at the historical context. Afterward, I’ll address in detail the content of the second amendment.
As I already commented on another occasion, the Bill of Rights is the result of the constitution ratification process.
That was due to the opposition it arose insofar as many people concluded it involved a backslide for individual liberties and rights. For this reason, James Madison reached the conclusion that it was necessary to include some special provisions in the constitution to limit the government and, in the meantime, protect individual rights and liberties.
There was great concerned among some notable figures about the implications of the new constitution for people’s rights. That’s because it granted enlarged powers to the federal government, and therefore, it could end up invading individual autonomy. So, the ten amendments aimed to appease those who showed discontent with the final draft of the constitution. In the end, it was a measure to keep the unity of the country.
The Bill of Rights had many political implications, and I don’t want to go over this again. You can find more information in a previous video that discusses why this document is important.
On this occasion, I’m going to focus on the second amendment. Why it’s there, and what its consequences are.
This amendment has two different parts that I want to address. They two are fundamental because they show two different dimensions of the same matter. These dimensions are intertwined, and we can’t separate them. On the one hand, there is a structural dimension. And on the other hand, we find the individual aspect. Both of them are interconnected by the same core values that inspire the Bill of Rights.
Before moving on, let’s read the second amendment to see what it says.
“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.”
The first part of the second amendment
The first part of the amendment speaks about a regulated Militia to keep the security of the States.
Why this? We find the explanation in the American tradition, but also in the fears of many Americans to witness the formation of an overwhelming federal government with enough power to dominate the States. It also links to the situation before the foundation of the US, when Americans had their militias for self-defense, a principle that was present in the common law.
In any case, this part of the second amendment has multiple ramifications. Regarding its connections with the colonial experience and the English political history, militias are part of the Americans’ self-government. That involves the defense of the State against foreign powers or against a president who became a tyrant. That required a militia, and that’s why militias were part of the American tradition. Above all else, the militia was a collective right to self-defense, which was considered a natural right.
Regarding the political situation after the ratification of the US constitution, there was great concern over the provisions settled in that text.
It entailed a shift in the control of the States’ militias to the federal Congress, which had from then on the power to raise a standing army. That has its codification in Article 1, Section 8, which allows Congress to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the US. In this way, the federal government can call forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasion. In brief, the constitution moved the power to arm the States’ militias from the States to the federal government. All of these were considered threatening measures for liberties, and many representatives mistrusted such enlarged federal powers because they were concerned about the risks of centralizing power.
For these reasons, those who showed outright disagreement with the constitution argued that it was necessary to amend it and define and enumerate the rights to provide more explicit constraints on the new government. They feared the federal government would be able to disarm militias and rule without consent, like an absolute king. That explains the compromise to incorporate the Bill of Rights, and the second amendment.
Even Federalists shared this concern. All political factions advocated for a political system based on people’s consent. Therefore, to avoid the creation of an oppressive regime, they saw the personal right to bear arms as a potential check against tyranny. They concluded that armed people would offset the military force of the federal government. For this reason, framers incorporated the second amendment.
Noah Webster, the political writer, discussed this idea and summarized it very well.
“Before a standing army can rule the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.”
George Mason, one of the Founding Fathers, was even more explicit when he stressed the importance of the militia and the right to bear arms. The experience had shown how England tried to disarm the people to enslave it by totally disusing and neglecting the militia. Therefore, he considered the militia necessary to grant freedom and prevent tyranny. All in all, as Mason said, the militia consisted of the whole people, except a few public officers. So, all were members of the militia and enjoyed the right to bear arms to serve therein individually.
What can we conclude from all of this? The Bill of Rights granted civil militia for the defense of the States and to preserve their autonomy before any attempt of the federal government to infringe their liberty.
Naturally, there can’t be any militia if people don’t have weapons, so the right to bear guns is inseparable from the existence of any militia, and vice versa. Now, let’s take a look at the last part of the amendment.
The second part of the second amendment
In general, the second amendment intends to avoid tyranny by granting the right of people to keep and bear arms. In this way, they can resist any attempt from the government to rule without their consent or pass bills against natural rights.
The Founding Fathers knew that despotism needs a disarmed people to thrive. For this reason, they considered necessary to grant the right to keep and bear arms. That would prevent the emergence of a despotic government able to enslave the people. They didn’t overlook the fact that freedom depends on force to protect it. In this respect, Patrick Henry wisely claimed: “Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.”
Hence, the second amendment not only grants a collective right to defend a community, that is, a free State. It is also a guarantee of the individual right to self-defense and liberty. An armed people are a free people, and when they are stripped of their right to bear arms, they become slaves. And that’s the political core of this amendment, the preservation of freedom against tyranny because freedom prevails if it has the force to do so.
A powerful government and a standing army were considered a menace for freedom. However, the public opposition to standing armies was also valid for other armed forces such as professional police. The reluctance to create these agencies led Americans to rely on county sheriffs, constables, and night guards to enforce local ordinances. Though sometimes compensated, often, these positions were unpaid because they were a matter of civic duty. Indeed, in the early decades of the new republic, law enforcement officers were rarely armed with firearms. Rather than that, they used billy clubs as their sole defensive weapons.
All in all, the second amendment embodies the American political mindset. What I mean with this is the acknowledge of natural rights such as resistance to oppression and self-defense. It has a direct relation with the English political tradition of the seventeenth century. In 1689 the Bill of Rights granted the right of English people to have arms and prevent the king from disarming his subjects to rule without their consent. The English Bill of Rights didn’t invent anything new but restored ancient rights trampled on by James II.
The second amendment follows a similar logic, and it grants the right to bear arms to preserve political liberty. Nevertheless, the English constitutional rule has the provision of regulating this right by law. That has meant the constraint of this right through legislation because nowadays, to exercise this right, it’s necessary the approval of the police.
That’s not the case of the US yet. But insofar as new regulations are incorporated to restrict this right, it might end up vanishing in the same way as in the UK.
We’ve seen so far different causes that originated the second amendment: political ideas, values, constitutional arrangements, history, and so on. But let’s take a look at this topic from a different angle — a practical point of view.
It’s well-known that the US government was small when the nation achieved its independence. And the defense of the country couldn’t depend on a standing army for two reasons. First, a standing army had the disapproval of the public because Americans considered it a threat to their freedom. And second, the country itself lacked the money to afford a standing army, which had been ruinous for the national economy.
There was still the threat of a new war with Great Britain, and security was necessary to grant the existence of the young republic. By ensuring the individual right to bear arms, framers contributed to creating an armed population that, in case of emergency, could defend the country. In some way, it was a low-cost citizens army.
That’s not all. Some authors believe that the framers of the Bill of Rights sought to balance not just political power, but also military power, between the people, the States, and the nation.
In this respect, it’s interesting the point of view that Alexander Hamilton set out when he referred to the militia. He stated that a well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it, would make unnecessary a standing army. If the government needed to call for military establishments under exceptional circumstances, that army could never overshadow the large body of armed citizens who stand ready to defend their rights. Hamilton said literally, “This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.”
So, the Founding Fathers were aware of the perils of a standing army for liberty, and they sought the way to preserve freedom without damaging the nation’s security. As a result, the second amendment turned out to be the constitutional mechanism to grant political liberty because, without the force to maintain it successfully, it fades away.
We’ve seen many different aspects of the second amendment so far, and now it’s time to summarize them.
Conclusion
Gun rights rest on specific values that informed the second amendment. And its incorporation into the constitution is essential for several purposes I’m going to enumerate.
First, to enable people to organize a militia system. Second, to participate in law enforcement. Third, to safeguard against a tyrannical government. Fourth, to repel invasion. Fifth, to suppress insurrection. And finally, to facilitate the natural right of self-defense.
In conclusion, the second amendment intends to protect freedom by granting people the right to bear guns and defend themselves from tyranny. Then, an armed people are a free people.
Question of the day
Question of the day! Do you think the second amendment is in danger? If so, what is its main threat today? Post your opinion in the comments section below, and I’ll check it out.
Bibliography used:
Morgan, Edmund S., The Birth of the Republic
Malcolm, Joyce Lee, To Keep and Bear Arms: The Origins of an Anglo-American Right
Halbrook, Stephen P., A Right to Bear Arms: State and Federal Bills of Rights and Constitutional Guarantees
Halbrook, Stephen P., That Every Man Be Armed: The Evolution of a Constitutional Right (Independent Studies in Political Economy)
Foner, Eric and John Arthur Garraty, The Reader’s Companion to American History
Blackstone, William, Commentaries on the Laws of England
DeConde, Alexander, Gun Violence in America: The struggle for control
Henry, Patrick, Speech on the Federal Constitution
Elliot, Jonathan, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution
Frohnen, Bruce (ed.), The American Republic: Primary Sources
Levy, Leonard W.. Origins of the Bill of Rights
Madison, James, Selected Writings of James Madison
Merkel, William G. and H. Richard Uviller, The Militia and the Right to Arms, Or, How the Second Amendment Fell Silent
Spitzer, Robert J., The Right to Bear Arms: Rights and Liberties under the Law
Bogus, Carl T. (ed.), The Second Amendment in Law and History: Historians and Constitutional Scholars on the Right to Bear Arms
Roberts, Oliver Ayer, History of the Military Company of the Massachusetts, now called the Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company of Massachusetts: 1637–1888
Disclosure: Some of these links are affiliate links where I’ll earn a small commission if you make a purchase at no additional cost to you. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.