The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is among America’s most hotly debated topics. Critics question its relevance to modern society, while the media trumpets high profile murders as they attempt to curtail, or even eliminate, Americans’ unique right to keep and bear arms. Gun rights advocates often seem to be playing defense against the nearly monolithic media assault, despite several recent court rulings upholding the Second Amendment’s validity.
Adopted as part of the Bill of Rights in 1791, the Second Amendment was written by the brilliant James Madison, who was informed by prominent Classical and Enlightenment thinkers, as well as statesmen of the Revolutionary and Constitutional era. It’s difficult to believe that such men were as short-sighted as gun control advocates would have us believe. After all, they were steeped in history, philosophy, economics, and possessed shrewd insights on human nature.
Likewise, these men had just lived through the American Revolution, which, it should be noted, went hot when British troops tried to seize arms from Massachusetts colonists on April 19, 1775. The response to that attempt was swift and violent. It was also fully supported by the delegates to the Continental Congress, who dispatched George Washington to command the troops besieging British-held Boston. Madison and his contemporaries fully understood the implications of an armed populace, despite what modern anti-gun activists say.
So, with all that in mind, let’s look at why the Second Amendment is a key component to preserving Americans’ liberty, and why it’s worth defending.
The Bill of Rights
Though he wrote the Bill of Rights, Madison initially opposed such a document as unnecessary. He believed that the Constitution itself was enough to secure Americans’ liberty. But Madison was urged to reconsider by such men as George Mason and Thomas Jefferson. Mason distrusted any kind of central government without spelling out the people’s liberties in detail. Madison disagreed, mainly because he felt that an enumerated Bill of Rights would be interpreted as limiting rights to only those addressed directly.
Jefferson, on the other hand, understood that majorities wielding the power of government could, and would, limit the rights of minorities. It happened in Ancient Athens, history’s first democracy, and soon instigated that democracy’s fall. That’s why the Framers structured our government as a constitutional republic, as opposed to a direct democracy. Many politicians, and most of the media, either fail, or outright refuse, to understand this concept.
How many times have we heard that “the majority of Americans” support the gun control flavor of the month, as if that’s a determining factor over a Constitutionally protected right? Not that I think a majority actually believes any such thing, but media polls can and are easily manipulated to obtain the desired results. The beauty of our system is that rights are protected, whether the “majority” has been manipulated into opposing them or not. And in this case, they have indeed been manipulated.
Another important aspect of the Bill of Rights is its phraseology. Reading it, you will notice that the text does not say something like “the people shall have the freedom to worship as they choose,” or “the people shall enjoy freedom of speech.” That wording would be classified as a “positive right,” meaning that the government, through the Bill of Rights, grants those rights.
Instead, the First Amendment begins by stating “Congress shall make no law…” This is framed as a “negative right,” meaning that the right is understood to exist as part of natural law and the government has no power to restrict it. The same can be said about the Second Amendment with the phrase “shall not be infringed.” The wording reflects the Constitution’s recognition that the right already exists beyond any government’s purview.
The Second Amendment is next in line to the Amendment protecting the right to speech, free exercise of religion, or no religion at all, assembly, and the right to petition the government. Madison obviously felt that the right to keep and bear arms was important enough to place it near the top, which brings us to…
Protecting American Liberty
I view this one in two ways, though they are aspects of the same concept. First, however, let’s spell out what the Second Amendment 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 Militia
The first clause clearly states Madison’s belief that the people are vital to ensuring a nation’s security against internal and external threats. That’s no surprise given the beginnings of the Revolutionary War and the role played by the state militias. I should note that the militias alone could not have won the war. The Continental Army, increasingly professionalized after 1777, formed the backbone of the fledgling American armed forces.
But the Army was never large enough to operate exclusively of the militias, who provided flank support and vital scouting services. The militias also held down the countryside, freeing the Continentals to stay concentrated against the British main body. The militiamen provided their own arms, driving home the necessity of protecting their right to keep those arms freely.
But the Framers also mistrusted standing armies, which was why the Continental Army was disbanded after the war. It also meant that they envisioned the militias as defensive organizations against foreign incursions. After all, the British still controlled Canada and remained a threat for decades after the Revolution.
And, for the record, “well regulated,” in 1791 vernacular, was akin to being well trained and well equipped. It did not mean that people could only keep and bear arms in the context of a militia tightly controlled by the government. That the militia, as noted by the brilliant George Mason, was composed of “the entire people,” and expected to train and equip themselves, is telling here. So, the next time you hear a gun controller going on about “well-regulated,” you’ll know he means that you should have an AR-15, plenty of 5.56 ammo, mags, and some good training. He just won’t know that he means that.
The People
Gun control advocates have long maintained that the right to keep and bear arms only applies to members of a militia controlled by the government. They like to tout the National Guard as an example. Funny how they also howl when actual militias are formed, but that’s another story for another day. We have already dispensed with the notion of strict government control, so let’s look at what the Second Amendment’s second clause means.
First, the 2008 Heller Decision confirmed that the second clause is not dependent upon the first. That means that the right to keep and bear arms is not understood only within the militia context and is, indeed, an individual right. Cue anti-gun hand wringing and teeth gnashing.
So, the right of the people to keep and bear arms means exactly what it says. But why did Madison include it? We can assume that Madison did not feel the need to protect the right to hunt. Most Americans in 1791 kept at least one firearm for just that reason. Not because the Second Amendment said they could, but because it was a matter of survival. It would be dumb for Madison to address such a basic fact of 18th century life.
He must, therefore, have had another reason. And while the second clause is not dependent upon the first, the answer lies there nonetheless, in the words “the security of a free state.”
The Founding Fathers, especially Jefferson, understood that central governments naturally draw power to themselves. That power is always accumulated at the people’s expense. Central governments eventually evolve into what Enlightenment philosopher Thomas Hobbes called the “Leviathan.” Jefferson, Mason, Madison, and the other Framers were quite familiar with Hobbes.
Theoretically, the Leviathan’s insatiable appetite for power would threaten individual and societal liberties, meaning the people must have a means to fight back should their institutions fail. The only plausible means was by keeping and bearing arms against the Leviathan. Not necessarily to actually fight it, though that might eventually come to fruition, but to provide an essential check on those who would deprive the people of those liberties. In other words, a government with bad intentions will, again theoretically, think twice before trampling the rights of a well-armed populace.
So, despite the naysaying of anti-gun activists and politicians, the Second Amendment is absolutely about checking the power of an overreaching government. The Leviathan if you will. Anti-gunners like to call this the “insurrectionist theory” of the Second Amendment to disparage this important capability. In fact, the right to check a tyrannical government is not only a right, but an obligation. The original meaning, from the Greek, of the word “tyrant,” is a person or government wielding power illegally. So, the people are obligated to counter such an illegal entity. An obligation requires that the people be prepared to meet that obligation. So don’t fall for that politically motivated narrative.
Citizen vs. Subject
This aspect of the Second Amendment derives from what we have already discussed. A free society consists, by definition, of citizens in the truest sense of the word. Citizens are different from subjects. The terms themselves illustrate those differences. Essentially, subjects are subject to their government’s will. Citizens, while certainly beholden to a nation’s lawfully enacted rules, have a say in those rules and how they are implemented.
The current uproar about the ATF’s ill-considered rules regarding pistol braces, frames and receivers, and bump stocks is a great example. It looks like the ATF has overstepped its authority, and legal challenges abound. The ATF represents the Leviathan. The courts, for now, represent the people’s right to have a say. We will see how that goes.
The Second Amendment ensures the people continue to enjoy that right. If you aren’t sure how, go back and reread the previous section on the Amendment’s second clause. Let’s just say that if the courts eventually fail, becoming a tool of the Leviathan, as opposed to safeguarding the people’s rights, that’s when it could kick in. Assuming the people even care to do so, which I sometimes wonder about.
Benjamin Franklin wrote that those who would trade liberty for safety will enjoy neither and lose both. That concept seems to be lost on certain elements of our society, including those who have been manipulated by the media and politicians.
A great example of the Leviathan in action is playing out in Canada right now. Note that our brothers and sisters in the Great White North do not enjoy the protections of anything analogous to the Second Amendment. Which brings us to…
The Second Amendment Makes Us Unique
You’ve no doubt heard the anti-gun crowd repeat, ad nauseum, that America is unique for its “gun violence.” The people who spout that stuff always cite raw numbers to supposedly prove their point. They also fail to mention that many nations, including the United Kingdom, count homicides differently than we do.
Statistics cited by those activists and politicians count self-defense, and justifiable homicides, including police killing criminals, in the US numbers. Numbers in nations they cite as examples for us to emulate do not count those incidents. Those commentators also often fail to account for population differences and ignore non-firearm related deaths. Those figures are therefore skewed, I would say deliberately so. Funny how that works, isn’t it? You can read more about that phenomenon at crimeresearch.org, or read Dr. John Lott’s excellent books.
This is not to diminish the horrific tragedies that we witness far too often. But trashing the Bill of Rights and banning guns will not fix the problem.
So, we are unique, but not so much in the way anti-gunners want us to believe. We are unique in that we possess, at least theoretically, the ability to resist the Leviathan. We are also unique in that we relish that ability. It’s the Second Amendment that fosters such an attitude. That mindset translates to…
Self-Reliance
American gun culture goes hand in hand with self-reliance. The Second Amendment protects our desires to accept responsibility for our own, and our community’s, security. Remember Hurricane Katrina? Remember the looters and scavengers? Remember how the police were completely overwhelmed? Mother Nature doesn’t play. Thanks to the Second Amendment, we can protect our communities if the need arises. It also protects our ability to do for ourselves in terms of hunting our own food if we choose, or necessity dictates.
Note that I did not couch those things in terms of rights. The right to keep and bear arms and, by extension, self-reliance, exists. But we must accept the responsibility to exercise that right in a positive manner. Those self-reliance capabilities grow from our right to equip and train as we see fit to accomplish those responsibilities. And what’s more positive than defending our homes and providing for our families? Countries without a Second Amendment, even supposedly free countries like Canada and Australia, have seen those options decline in recent years.
Protector of the Rest
The Second Amendment is about more than owning guns. It’s part of a philosophy that defines what a free society truly is. We decide how to defend ourselves. Or not. We can accept that responsibility or rely on the government. The difference between the US and many other countries is that we have that choice. Frankly, the Second Amendment, and its protection of the right to arms, is the very definition of liberty.
Of course, the naysayers and protectionists view that choice as bad, and they certainly disagree with my defining the Second Amendment as liberty itself. But that’s their right too. The Second Amendment, whether those folks recognize it or not, protects their liberties just as much as it does for those of us who embrace it.
Rights without the wherewithal to back them up are just words on paper. So long as everyone agrees to acknowledge those rights, everything’s good. But history is rife with people and regimes who do not acknowledge those rights and actively work to curtail them.
It’s an extreme example, but Germany was considered the most civilized nation in Europe, if not the world, in the 1920s and early 1930s. The Germans were leaders in art, literature, science, and human rights. The Weimar Republic’s Constitution was perhaps the most liberal in the world. It all came crashing down when the Great Depression allowed a fringe politician named Adolf Hitler to gain power through the democratic process.
The Weimar government had enacted well-meaning gun control with an eye toward public safety. All guns had to be registered. Again, they believed it was a safety measure. One of Chancellor Hitler’s first moves was to have the German Reichstag grant him emergency powers. There’s more to it, but they did so. He never relinquished those powers, and the registration lists were eventually used to disarm those the regime labeled as “undesirables.” We know what happened next.
Think it can’t happen here? Probably not, if we’re being honest. But are you willing to give up your rights because something is improbable? I’m not. Having studied history my entire life, formally and informally, I’m well aware of how the Leviathan works, as well as opportunistic bad actors.
You do you, but I’ll defend the Second Amendment, and what it stands for, until my last breath. Not because I value guns over human life, but because I value human life most of all. And in today’s world, our firearms provide us the best means of defending what we value.
