"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 first place, it is important to pay attention to the structure of the statement and the use of punctuation in it's forming. That matters. But what does this mean to us, and what did it mean to them? A really good place to look would be in contemporary writings of the time where the authors of the Constitution were working very hard to convince the citizenry of the new nation that a Constitution was essential element to their collective future and that the establishment of a central, federal government was one of the few ways in which future security could be attained. Security in this respect was in having a method of holding the union together without the states becoming fragmented or being overtaken by some external force (British or otherwise).
As can be expected in this period there was a great deal of hesitancy by the population in creating a national government, or at least a national government that had any power or strength. Having just come from a war to detach themselves from a tyrannical government it is completely understandable that this would be the prevailing opinion. Why, after throwing off the yoke of England and the king would they want to put in place another government that could do the exact same thing?
Beyond the legislative reasons to not want a central government (taxation, land management trade tariffs...etc...) having an ARMED central government was even more concerning. In 1789 the standing Army in the United States consisted of one Regiment. Estimate that to be around 700 Men. There was no Navy at this point. That was IT, 700 men to defend the nation. The concept of the time was that the individual state militias would provide the forces necessary to defend the country, or at least defend their state (there was little motivation at this point to defend some other state).
So what guarantees would be put in place to ensure this new federal system of government did not come to oppress the people of the individual states? The simple answer is “the militia” but let's really look at the Constitutional text. It does not say “the right of the state to have an armed militia” (which people want to read it to so state). It is saying that there must be a militia (for security) and that militia is possible because INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS are armed.
Or as James Madison wrote: “The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition.”
So what of those contemporary writings to get to this conclusion where the PEOPLE would be able to ensure a federal government military would not usurp their rights..
Federalist #46....
First off, if you have never read the Federalist Papers there is now way for you to clearly understand the framers' position and the sense of the public during this period of our history. It's pretty amazing work composed by some incredibly intelligent men (Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay). I suggest before arguing about what the Constitution means on ANY topic, that you educate yourself. It's worth the effort.
Federalist 46 was written by James Madison (the previous quote being in 46)
So how is this argument presented to the people that the federal government military would not pose a threat to the State governments and citizens?
Madison states: Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger.
State government with the PEOPLE on their side would be able to repel the danger. This is saying that the people of the STATE would be able to fight off and defeat the standing army.
Seriously? (Think about that in today's United States.....)
But what of the term used here “militia”? Well, this is another area where there must be some historical context understood. First, there is no such thing as our modern “National Guard” in existence at this time. The Guard may trace their lineage back to some point where a militia company or regiment was formed, but it was a very different thing. The militias within the states were formed through various laws passed by federal government authorizing militias and state governments as well.
SECOND CONGRESS
STATUTE I. May 2, 1792. CHAP. XXVIII.-An Act to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions.
Many of these early attempts to form militias would fade or fall into disuse requiring new legislation to once again bring forward the need of the armed citizenry and formation of militia units within the respective states.
Looking back to the War of 1812, the Militia Act of January 7, 1812 is an excellent example. The Act required all able bodied white males between the ages of 18 to 45 to be members of the militia (there also were included a list of exclusion categories for militia membership). The Act also directed that the officers and non-commissioned officers of the militia companies ARM THEMSELVES. The state did not provide arms. In fact failure to comply with the act would result in the violators to be fined for NOT being armed.
“who shall not within three months after the passage of this act; and each commissioned officer who may be hereafter appointed under this act, who shall not within three months after such appointment, arm, accoutre and provide himself as directed by the act”
So why would there be an expectation that these men would be able to arm themselves? Even in this early period it was more common and expected.
Madison speaks directly of this in Federalist #46 where it is an ADVANTAGE that Americans possess arms.
“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. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”
AFRAID TO TRUST THE PEOPLE WITH ARMS
Yes, Madison is demonstrating that the military of the European nations are able to drain the resources from the people as much as they want, because the people lack the ability to resist. There is no way to stop a tyrant from doing whatever they want because the people are unable to come against the military that is controlled by the government. Zero threat. The citizens become sheep.
Madison is not talking about only the military having arms or only the “militias” having arms. Madison is also fairly clear that the people of the State be armed. And not only that the people of the State to BE armed, but that those arms carried by the citizens (who form the militia) are on par with the arms carried by the army. They are not to have less capability...they are intended to have equal capability. Being disarmed is not seen as a way to become more secure ( as is glorified today). It was a fact that demonstrated how America was different from and exemplary to other nations and governments. The system by which the people lived under would not be one that was forced upon them, but would be one that was accepted through the assurances of arms, not the promises of elected officials that might turn on them.
So in all this, I continue to be amazed at how well thought out and relevant the words in the Constitution are. Not just the words themselves but the intent of those words. We as Americans miss the point due to our increasing dependence upon the government and the relative peace in which our society lives. We also seem to be infatuated by other societies and nations. Well, they are not the United States, do not have our heritage and were not formed from the same circumstances so I do not hold them in any regard.
Interesting that the majority of our society struggles against the first two amendments of the Constitution. This is not accidental. The establishment clause brings forth those areas that were most egregiously violated in the period when written...and continue to be the most contentious within our society today. The Second amendment is meant to provide the means to ensure the First is not violated or taken away.
My personal opinion is that the current challenges we have in this country today have more to do with our misinterpretation of the First resulting in demands to violate the Second.