2nd Amendment in Print

“A man with a gun is a citizen. A man without a gun is a subject.” Attributed to D. Michael Wiechman, May 14, 1996.

In 1776, Thomas Jefferson said, “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”
The meaning of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution is best addressed by re-reading the actual words.

“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.”
Two words appear to be critical to an understanding of the amendment.
First, Militia. A militia in the original text refers to a citizen body capable of protecting the freedom of the state in which it resides should an invasion, attack or other hostility take place. There was no consideration at the time of “federal troops” arriving to manage the situation. Each state was expected to be capable of defending itself. In order to do so, it expected all able bodied males to be equipped with their own “arms”.

And therein lies the second word for consideration. “Arms” are undefined. Did the Founders mean “firearms” as we interpret the word so often today? In truth, “Arms” includes any implement that may be used for self-defense or defense of a community. Thus, a club, a machete, a bowing knife or even a cross-bow may be considered an “arm” in the true sense.

Perhaps the argument is really a question of whether a citizen has the right to self-defense. There do not appear to be any court decisions that would eliminate or prohibit such a right! In fact, the majority of such court decisions have come down on the side of self-defense with the defendant being cleared of any incrimination.
The point is that an individual with the right of self-defense should be able to use whatever implement is “at hand” to protect themselves against an intruder, marauder, rapist, thief or other criminal who may or may not be intent on rendering bodily harm to the citizen.

Judgment is critical on the part of every citizen with respect to when force, of any type, is required to resolve a dangerous condition or confrontation. Disagreement is not a sound basis for employing physical force.

Does any one expect a criminal to stop if the subject threatens to call 911. Yes, 911 is a great help in many emergencies, particularly those where a person’s health is involved. Many heart attack victims have been saved as a result of the emergency services provided by the 911 team. But, as an anonymous individual stated, “I carry a gun because I can’t carry a cop.”

Statistically, the number of firearms in the possession of law-abiding citizens is in the tens of millions. Yet, they don’t show up as the ones involved in criminal activities. Only a criminal seeks to have a firearm (often illegally) with which to enforce his or her desires on the victim. This supports the oft-repeated idea that if guns are taken away from the lawful citizens, only the criminals will have guns! The Founding Fathers could not anticipate modern times but they could and did recognize the importance of self-defense whether it be in the face of a criminal or a tyrannical government. Otherwise, they would never have included the 2nd Amendment.