I must warn you, this is not a light read. Consisting on this page is a great deal of information, all of which is cited from sources that are even more expansive.
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 United States Constitution
Many have heard the above-mentioned quote; something which is rooted heavily in our history and culture. For good reason, this amendment is widely referenced and regarded in various ways. In today’s world, there is often much debate about the true meaning of this sentence. Yet, with a simple look into history, the meaning becomes unmistakenly apparent.
The context surrounding the Second Amendment is profound. We have much information from private correspondence, to official transcripts of debates, to the drafts and actual language of the correct related time. We also have the history of English Common law in regard to the right of people to keep and bear arms; for the defense of themselves and others.
More specifically, however, we have the proper historical evidence to understand and define the intent behind the words of the Second Amendment, particularly the “well regulated Militia.” This historical evidence all stems from the struggle the Founding Fathers endured in procuring a country, with which the likes of its government system had yet to be created. I would argue the Declaration of Independence and the Preamble of the Consitution is enough evidence to conclude the meaning of the Second Amendment (beyond simple English language understanding). Yet, it would seem many in our country are simply ignorant in this topic, all the while wishing to debate strongly on the topic; which subsequently is their right under the First Amendment.
Either way, in order for us as a society to ever make progress either for or against gun control, we must understand the history of that which we are to interpret and debate.
The Second Amendment is a right preordained by God or nature, depending on your belief. It is not a privilege or a right given to us by any government but recognized by such. As is stated in the Declaration of Independence amongst many of King George’s offenses, “He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures. He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power. For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us.” These are the precursors to the cause and effect reaction we see in the Consitution and founding of America; as is seen with the quartering of troops and the Third Amendment. Yet, as mentioned at the beginning of the Declaration,
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
Declaration of Independence
That is effectively the purpose and efforts of the Articles of Confederation and later the Constitution. To establish a government in which the power is derived from the people for the protection of said unalienable Rights.
James Madison drafted and wrote the Second Amendment. Just to give some preparatory information, the DC v. Heller (2008) Supreme Court case established that the Second Amendment was not dependent on the service of a militia for a citizen to practice their right to keep and bear arms; “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.” Yet, still, even with the very relevant historical context and information used to reach this holding, there is still a prolific notion that the Second Amendment is only of a Militia’s rights and that ‘regulated’ offers the government the right to establish regulations such as gun control. This is simply not true.
One of the original drafts gives much more context behind the intent and meaning of the Second Amendment. As Madison drafted, “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person”, June 8, 1789. (Library of Congress) This simply confirms the held opinion of the Supreme Court; the instance of a semi-colon separates the clauses defiantly (just like the comma does in the ratified version, yet implies a stronger separation as is known in the English language). The inclusion of the clause following the former is to make clear the paramount function a militia has in the ability to form itself to fight a tyrannical government.
The Founding Fathers practically all agreed on the fundamental basis of bearing arms, and the formation of militias, to protect a free people from tyrannical government. James Madison shares his views on this very topic and the serving the context of the Bill of Rights in the Federalist Papers; specifically, in Federalist Papers No. 46 he contextualizes and clarifies the reason for the Second Amendment. In some ways, like many other writings from the Founding Fathers, it feels as though they are speaking directly in our time, as the words they write relate near perfect. “It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it.” There is a modern argument that is often made along the lines of “What can you do against fighter jets”, or something along those lines. James Madison appears to answer that question well. With digression, Madison also mentions the establishment of militias: “Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.”
As mentioned, the majority of the Founding Fathers had related opinions to Madison with slight variations, typically found strongest amongst his political opponents. As part of the Federalist Papers No. 29, Alexander Hamilton also shared his opinion on the establishment of militias to prevent tyrannical government. He argued, “This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority…. to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States…” He, as is known, fought for stronger central government. Yet, as history would show, the majority of the electives agreed with James Madison. Also, Hamilton came to the conclusion that a militia, such as he describes above, is not possible, as the average citizen did not have the luxury of taking time off from their livelihoods to support a uniform, regulated militia; any time taken off for the militia, he explained, would result in the sufferance of society. In fact, in this very statement, Hamilton also explains well-regulated to his (and of the time) definition: “To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss.”
I do suppose it is quite time to define who the militia is and the ‘regulated’ portion as it is becoming more apparent. The militia as stated by nearly every Founding Father, including in the Second Amendment itself, is comprised of the people. Meaning the general population of U.S. citizens. As George Mason, a Founding Father and delegate to Virginia, said, “Mr. Chairman, a worthy member has asked who are the militia, if they be not the people of this country, and if we are not to be protected from the fate of the Germans, Prussians, &c., by our representation? I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers. ” (University of Chicago) The context of this quote is in a Virginia debate in 1788 to ratify the Constitution. The topic of Militias are at the forefront, and the many clauses referencing them are brought to light in debate. As is also mentioned by Mason, “Under the present government, all ranks of people are subject to militia duty.” Many states did, in fact, have some variation of required military service, though, as debated by Mason and others, there was much confusion and hypocrisy surrounding the power (and regulation/leadership) of the militia.
Suppose, even for a second, that the government of either state or federal level has become tyrannical; it is more than clear that the Founding Fathers would consider it right to overthrow that government, to establish a new, from which protects the rights of citizens and rids of such tyranny. As formerly stated, the only way to do so is by the procurement of arms and forming of militias. Yet, what happens if the supposed “regulator or power” over the militia is that which the militia is fighting against? It then falls onto the people themselves, which requires that they at all times keep and bear arms, as is important and proper; hence, the Second Amendment.
The Founding Fathers also, within many debates, conventions, correspondence, etc, clearly defined that they wanted everybody (healthy and free men at the time, mostly) to have a gun. They even ventured to the point of instilling what now would be considered gun culture, as nearly every boy was taught how to use a firearm.
Beyond the simple teachings given to the new generation, there were also teachings for the current and old generations. Specifically, the militia is only found in power by the people per se. In correlation, this pragmatically forms the idea, also in philosophy, that the people therefore must be armed, and never disbarred of this right. As Patrick Henry said, during the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1788, “Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it, but downright force: Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.” He continues on a separate day saying, “May we not discipline and arm them, as well as Congress, if the power be concurrent? So that our militia shall have two sets of arms, double sets of regimentals, and thus, at a very great cost, we shall be doubly armed. The great object is, that every man be armed. But can the people afford to pay for double sets of arms, Every one Who is able may have a gun. But we have learned, by experience, that, necessary as it is to have arms, and though our Assembly has, by a succession of laws for many years, endeavored to have the militia completely armed, it is still far from being the case.” The questions and arguments put forth by Henry concur with the general debate on the use and creation of militias. Yet, still, as it remains, the people are the militia; while the people are all free men able to carry arms.
In combat to the Federalist Papers, an opposing paper was created called the Federal Farmer. The author is unknown but is theorized to be Richard Henry Lee. Regardless, the information and arguments inside the Federal Farmer, which was Anti-Federalist, created many contrary arguments during the fight for ratification. In Federal Farmer No. 18, it is said
A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves, and render regular troops in a great measure unnecessary.
Federal Farmer
The Anti-Federalist view stated in this sentence and its surrounding sentences are based on the principles of a standing regular army; one in which both sides had questioned the authority and oppression that can be exploited through the very vessel. He is also saying, that the purpose of having a people who form the militia and therefore armed are then the natural defenders of the land, country, and liberty. “The powers to form and arm the militia, to appoint their officers, and to command their services, are very important; nor ought they in a confederated republic to be lodged, solely, in any one member of the government.” The key understanding, however, is that the militia is still the people; with officers elected by said people, from the form of government where electives are to be responsible for the leadership and upkeep of the militia. As aforementioned above, the militia consists of the people with a few government officers. There is also mention of the Consitution in its involvement in this topic: “principle well fixed by the constitution, then the federal head may prescribe a general uniform plan, on which the respective states shall form and train the militia, appoint their officers and solely manage them, except when called into the service of the union, and when called into that service, they may be commanded and governed by the union.”
The Federal Farmer also, in a very longwinded sentence, says: “This arrangement combines energy and safety in it; it places the sword in the hands of the solid interest of the community, and not in the hands of men destitute of property, of principle, or of attachment to the society and government, who often form the select corps of peace or ordinary establishments: by it, the militia are the people, immediately under the management of the state governments, but on a uniform federal plan, and called into the service, command, and government of the union, when necessary for the common defence and general tranquility. But, say gentlemen, the general militia are for the most part employed at home in their private concerns, cannot well be called out, or be depended upon; that we must have a select militia; that is, as I understand it, particular corps or bodies of young men, and of men who have but little to do at home, particularly armed and disciplined in some measure, at the public expense, and always ready to take the field.” As is mentioned, the militia are at home, in their private matters, and often cannot take up their arms (because of other duties), which are stored in their dwelling, of the regulation specified by the government under the said uniform plan; such arms are of the same “caliber” of the standing army and union, as the union itself is dependent on those arms, just as the militia itself. Though, the Farmer also states a situation in which those who are not burdened by their families or livelihoods would essentially become the “select militia”, which has a purpose to always be ready in waiting to defend. Yet, “These corps, not much unlike regular troops, will ever produce an inattention to the general militia; and the consequence has ever been, and always must be, that the substantial men, having families and property, will generally be without arms, without knowing the use of them, and defenceless; whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion.” As is said, the militia is of the general people; as it is a general militia itself. Beyond which, the service within is not always required, nor should it be, but rather it is paramount to the fundamental safety and security of their property and families that they are trained and equipped with arms, as otherwise left “defenceless”.
If you haven’t already figured out what ‘well-regulated’ means from the multitude of historical sources, the term defines something that is in good order, standing, and disciplined. Such as, a militia having training, proper equipment, and disciplined to the extent of success, i.e. well functioning.
Another insight into the minds of the Founding Fathers would be to look at their own state constitutions. Many states established, before the ratification, many of the precursors to the Second Amendment. Such as:
The people have a right to keep and bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State…
Vermont Constitution, July 8, 1777
I must note, however, the rest of that quote; which happens to be consistent with the majority of states’ constitutions (at the time): “…defence of themselves and the State; and, as standing armies, in the time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.” The Constitution of Pennsylvania, September 28, 1776, had an identical right, word for word. Amongst the many states, Virginia, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire all had related or very similar enumerated rights in regards to keeping and bearing arms. Nearly every state listed has the right for people to keep and bear arms for the common defence of the State. Subsequently, provided based on the nature of the militia, being an armed force of the general public and people, for the purpose of defense of themselves and their State, would suggest that we, as a country, have failed to live to the proper responsibility and duty presented in the Second Amendment; this being true, as the Second Amendment includes those which are mentioned: “..being necessary to the security of a free State…”
Another important contextual text is some of the minority, or otherwise statements made in conventions of various states. Such as, New York:
That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, including the body of the People capable of bearing Arms, is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State;
Ratification of the Constitution by the State of New York, July 26, 1788
The convention also stated “That the Militia should not be subject to Martial Law except in time of War, Rebellion, or Insurrection.” Something which similarly was stated by the New Hampshire Ratification Convention:
Congress shall never disarm any Citizen unless such as are or have been in Actual Rebellion.
Ratification of the Consitution by the State of New Hampshire, June 21, 1788
The Debate and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts also gives a unique look into what may be the most compelling debunk of modern gun control advocacy and laws. As a motion was made on February 6, 1788, it said, “And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience ; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms ; or to raise standing armies, unless when necessary for the defence of the United States, or of some one or more of them…”
The individual theories, drafts, opinions, and philosophies on the Second Amendment, and the militia that entails, are widely found within many Founding Fathers’ papers, letters, debates, etc.
A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies.
First Annual Message to Congress, George Washington
On January 8, 1790, President Washington stated that which has been so according to practically every Founding Father; free people should be armed, trained, and disciplined for varying purposes, including the defence of a free State. Specifically, the mention of “particularly military, supplies”, which, would include the likes of ammunition, small arms, cannons, uniforms, etc, which are manufactured by the people for the people’s militia is something that today is argued to not apply to civilians, but in my digression; the importance of understanding the entirety of the origins of the Second Amendment and Constitution, for that matter, are crucial to any debate on gun rights.
On a related modern gun debate topic, in many ways Thomas Jefferson implies his support for the casual carry of arms in a letter to his nephew; in which he says, “As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun. While this gives a moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprize, and independance to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks.” Jefferson also stated in three drafts for the Virginia Constitution the right to use arms, and specifically, on one’s own land and house. The first draft states, “No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” The second states (of which the third is the same), “No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms [within his own lands or tenements].”
Regardless of all that is believed, it stands true, not only in English but in practice and philosophy, that any militia, well-regulated (trained, stocked, and disciplined) or otherwise, is by nature formed by the people with the power rested in the people, of general and public nature, so long as one has the ability to fight with a gun. Furthermore, it is the job of that militia to hold onto arms and act as the final check in the checks and balances system, to thwart any attempts of oppression or tyranny by any government; to therein act out their duty to overthrow such government and reestablish a proper order of liberty and freedom. It is the duty and right of all such peoples to so justly carry out that which has been solely designated.
It is chilling how fortuitous the Founding Fathers were in their predictions to the future and the relevance of those thoughts today; as Thomas Jefferson said to William Johnson,
on every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was past.
Letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823