The Second Amendment Explained

A comment recently argued that the Second Amendment was vague and therefore open to an interpretation that would prevent people from owning handguns. He likely got this interpretation from the writer Garry Wills who has made a good living attacking conservative ideals over the past couple of decades.

The reason for the language in the Second Amendment is that those at the time worked within an Anglo-American tradition that needed no explanation. Just as today, we would say "the dream of Dr. King" and no one would ask "what dream" or "who is Dr. King?" those of the 1790s were children of a centuries old tradition.

King Henry II helped to build this tradition with the Assize of Arms, requiring that every male citizen own some sort of weapon. Although Alfred the Great in his time had ordered the creation of a fyrd, or militia, Henry's assize was much more specific. This enabled him to get by without a standing army because all were required to help defend the realm. However, an armed citizenry meant that Henry also had to take steps to make sure those people were happy. He traveled his kingdom to make sure he was aware of the people's needs. Later it became more convenient for kings to call representatives to the capital. The partnership between ruler and ruled, cemented by an armed people, put England on the road towards democracy. A good government has nothing to fear from an armed population, but the armed population is the best insurance policy against tyranny. And don't bring up the argument about modern weapons. The experiences and/or writings of Giap, Che Guavara, Max Boot and others about guerilla warfare bely the notion that people with their own arms are powerless in modern warfare.

In the 1600s Britain knew tyranny from both power hungry kings and Oliver Cromell's dictatorship. The natural rights of life, liberty, and property were unsafe in the hands of such a government. By the 1700s British Whigs spoke openly about the need for an armed population to protect itself from tyranny. Our forefathers, according to noted American historian Bernard Bailyn, absorbed these principles like mother's milk. It was part of the justification for the Revolution itself. Meanwhile, the Indian chief King Phillip's war of genocide against New England spurred Americans on the frontier to understand that every good citizen must be armed to defend his community. Add to these historical antecedents the natural right of people to protect themselves and their property and you have the Second Amendment.

But let's imagine for a second that guns would magically vanish. Would we be safer? Maybe the strongest of us would be. I am 6'2, 250, and fairly young. I could handle a baseball bat pretty well to defend myself and my property. What if I were elderly and frail? My grandmother until she died at age eighty kept a handgun under her bed. Her husband who died in 1973 taught her how to use it and she kept it for security. She lived far from possible police protection. If there were no guns, home invaders could easily have harmed her with bats or axes. The possibility of getting shot deters a lot of these predators. Who is anyone to deny the right of the elderly or the disabled to defend themselves? How about the young woman trying to break away from a much stronger and abusive man who has promised to kill her if she ever leaves? Who is anyone to take away her right to protect herself? The intruder will think twice before entering a home if there is a possibility of the resident shooting him or her to death.

The Second Amendment's guarantee of gun rights is meant to help assist in the national defense, give property owners the ability to defend themselves and their families, and insure against a tyrannical government. Thomas Jefferson, who has been described as James Madison's collaborator to the point that one historian claimed they by the early 1790s almost shared the same mind, described the Second Amendment as his favorite because it helped protect against tyranny. This gives an important clue as to the mindset of the author, James Madison. No one at that time would have fathomed that people's right to defend their persons with deadly force would ever be questioned. It would be like questioning your right to eat whatever you wanted.

The violent will be violent, governments at some point will seek too much authority, and at some point we will face a serious attack on our territory. The first measure taken to prepare any nation for dictatorship is the removal of the citizens' guns. We must never allow ourselves to be in that position as a nation or as individuals, vulnerable to whatever strong force seeks to violate us.

An Armed Population Is a Free Population

When approaching the next election, many Americans will make their decisions based in part upon which candidates will more soundly defend their Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms.

Opponents try to argue away the notion that an armed population is desirable or necessary in the modern age. An academic in the 1990s tried to argue that there was actually no tradition whatsoever of Americans or English adhering to such a belief. Attacks on gun ownership are attacks on freedom. If the Second Amendment can be subverted the rest can be as well. Additionally the Second Amendment guarantees that citizens can protect their own rights when it comes down to it. It is a check in the hands of the people on the power of the government. This was why Thomas Jefferson liked this amendment more than any other.

The Second Amendment did not just arise from nowhere. In 1181 Henry II legalized English traditions in the Assize of Arms. From the time of the early Middle Ages, English citizens maintained personal arms and served in a militia known as a fyrd. The king could call upon these men in times of severe danger. Henry II was an autocrat without a doubt, but did not interfere much in the liberties of his people. The Assize of Arms did not simply encourage, but demanded that men arm themselves. Few other kings have seen an armed population as anything but a threat, but Henry II and his successors had faith in the English people. Many of them also paid close attention to the issues and problems of their kingdom. Almost no European rulers at that time held so much concern. It could definitely be argued that the armed condition of the population encouraged the king to look more closely at the needs of the people.

The emergence of a tyrant in the 1600s, Charles I, convinced the people of England that they needed to be armed to fight their own government when necessary. Charles I proved that even a British king can overstep his bounds. When he did so, the people needed to bring their government back in line. American colonists in the 1700s combined this idea with the fact that frontiersmen needed to be armed in case of Indian or French attack.

Second Amendment rights go beyond the need for property protection or national defense. The right to keep and bear arms reflects the relationship between the government and the governed. A government that promotes liberty and property rights need not fear an armed population. When the government decides that natural rights must be systematically violated and that arms must be taken away, it is saying that it fears the people and their freedom of action. The taking away of arms almost always precedes a dictatorship that abuses the people.

The Founding Fathers emphasized the right of a population to remain armed because it reminds the government of where sovereignty actually lies.