The Second Amendment: Back From the Dead?

Of all the Consitutional Amendments, perhaps one of the most hotly debated is the Second. This specifies that "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." In the semi-recent District of Columbia v. Heller,according to the Deseret News, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment gives an indivual the right to own guns.

There is, however, one slight issue with the Court's ruling. Nobody disputes the fact that an individual has a right to own a gun - or, to be more precise, "arms." The definition of the said "arms," is where part of the problem rests. At the time that the Second Amendment was written, "arms" constituted a flintlock weapon - usually a musket, though early models of rifle were starting to be made. Thus, the Amendment never accounted for, nor allowed, weapons such as machine guns, M16s, sawed-off shotguns, or any of the other amazingly powerful or deadly killing machines that exist today. Had any of the founders been able to forsee the types of weapons that would be developed down the road, it is entirely possible that the Second Amendment might have been worded differently.

Another key point, one which many people seem to miss, is that "the right to bear arms" was, at the time of the Second Amendment's writing, considered to be one of military importance. People were guaranteed the right to bear arms, not so that they could hunt or go on killing sprees, but so that they could serve in the state militia, which would, in turn, aid in the defense of the nation. This notion of providing for one's own defense, over time, has somehow been lost and, in the process, mutated into a generic concept that everyone is entitled to own a gun.

By permitting people to own nearly any kind of gun, for almost any purpose, the government is taking a dangerous course. This is not to say that the Supreme Court should disallow the people their right to bear arms. By all means, people should have a constitutionally-protected right to do so. However, the constitutional protection should only extend to what was originally intended. Modern firearm technology should not receive guaranteed constitutional protection but, instead, should be ruled on separately.

In spite of the Amendment's apparently-clear wording, one finds a plethora of interpretations on the issue. Yet a new look at the Second Amendment is in order.This time, it would pay to view the issue from the standpoint of how the Amendment was supposed to be interpreted, in its historical setting, and how people have twisted and distorted it to fit their own ends.