1 of 23

Yes

Write now Article Tools

In much the same way that interpreting the Bible has always been an intellectual and emotional quagmire, the debate about gun control in the most violent, developed country in the world has been obfuscated by countless interpretations. Virtually all of the arguments take into account only one aspect of that part of the US Constitutional that speaks to citizens and guns: the part that best serves their position. Few take into account the full context and meaning of the law as it has been preserved since its ratification over 200 years ago.

The second amendment to the US Constitution 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." Clearly, this statement integrates two concepts. The first is that there must be a "militia" prepared at all times to defend the country and that the militia must be "well regulated." Our founding fathers did not want gangs of armed men sneaking about the countryside like Sunni or Shia insurgents in today's Iraq.

The second concept integrated in the amendment is "the right of the People to keep and bear arms." If we take this statement out of context, forgetting the first concept for the moment, this seems to say, outright, that every citizen can possess guns if they so desire. Gun advocates hold that this statement protects their rights to arm themselves in the privacy of their homes without restriction.

Together the two concepts forming the amendment appear to provide for the publics access to guns - that is "People" spelled with a capital "P" - not individuals per se. Guns are protected from government chicanery so that local militias, such as a National Guard unit, authorized by a lower regulatory body, such as a state, would be prepared to stand at arms against the federal government should it try to oppress the People.

Within the regulating authority of the state, controls can be implemented to manage the militia and its weaponry. In its act of regulating the militia, it is prudent for the state to distinguish between the degree of access for different types of weapons, such as automatic rifles, and to do so without "infringing" on the right of the militia to have those weapons. They can infringe on the individual's right to bear arms so long as they do not infringe on the rights of the collective to have those arms available just in case. An additional regulatory measure would be to require membership in the militia so that use of the more dangerous weapons can be trained.

A "well regulated militia" is not free range, unregulated gun possession. The "right to keep and bear arms" has been protected for the well-regulated militia, not the individual. Wise state governments choose to assert minimal control over guns with the lowest degree of kill-power, such as hand guns and hunting rifles for instance, while keeping automatic weapons in the National Guard armory where trained citizens gain access to stay ready to resist oppression with arms if need be.

Learn more about this author, Michael Burgwin.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.

Add your voice

Know something about Are gun control laws compatible with the Constitution's right to bear arms provisions??
We want to hear your view. Write now!