Richard's Blog

There is a movement afoot within and without the ranks of the National Rifle Association that claims that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees each individual the right to bear arms.  Does a plain reading of the Second Amendment inescapably lead to this conclusion?  The Second Amendment 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.”  At first blush, it would appear that the Founding Fathers had in mind a group activity that would protect a “free State.”  They would do this by ensuring that there were arms available to be used by the Militia. 

     A visit to Concord, Massachusetts or Williamsburg, Virginia helps to understand what the Founding Fathers had in mind when talking about a Militia.  In both of those towns, there was a store house where the guns and gun powder were kept.  In fact, the British marched on Concord to seize the weapons and powder stored in the store house located in the middle of town.  This is the incident that gave rise to Paul Revere’s famous ride.  The British also tried to capture the store house at Williamsburg.  These Arms were for the use of the Militia. 

     No one is going to take serious issue with the ability of the Founding Fathers to use the English language in order to express their intentions.  After all, they wrote these words:  “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”  Should we take at face value what they wrote in the Constitution that they drafted and handed down to us?  I think so.

     So, if the Founding Fathers had wanted to ensure that each individual had the right to own and brandish firearms, wouldn’t they have said so?  Being masters of the English language, wouldn’t they have said something like this instead of what they did say:  “The right of each and every individual to own and keep firearms for his individual use, enjoyment and protection, shall not be infringed.”

     But, they didn’t say that.  Clearly their focus was on group safety and the right of the group to keep arms in order to protect the State.  That’s what they say.  If there are those who want to modify the 2nd Amendment to say something else, then a Constitutional Amendment would be the proper route to follow.  But, prior to that, there is no express grant in the Constitution for an individual to own, possess or use firearms.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.