25 minute read
THE FIRST THING YOU SHOULD KNOW ABOUT THE SECOND AMENDMENT
Second Amendment
By Jim Lamb
Advertisement
The first thing you need to know about the Second Amendment is that without it there would be no Constitution and without a Constitution, there is no United States. It’s that simple. Everything else is garnish. That’s why President Donald J. Trump has made his stance on the Second Amendment direct and unequivocal:
“The Second Amendment to our Constitution is clear. The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed upon. Period.”
Does everyone agree with that? No.
The question is, “Why?”
The answer is simple: Power.
Don’t think so?
Let’s see what three 20th-Century Tyrants, two Fascists and a Communist – said:
Adolf Hitler: “History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty.”
Benito Mussolini: “On the morrow of each conflict I gave the categorical order to confiscate the largest possible number of weapons of every sort and kind. This confiscation, which continues with the utmost energy, has given satisfactory results.”
Mao Tse Tung: “All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party.” The three quotes above clarify the genuine threat gun-owners face; the three quotes below add depth and breadth to the conversation:
“When the history of the 20th Century is finally written, one of its key features will be the wanton slaughter of more than 170 million people, not in war, but by their own government. The governments that led in this slaughter are the former USSR (65 million) and the Peoples Republic of China (35-40 million). The point to remember is that these governments were the idols of America's leftists. Part of reason for these and other tyrannical successes was because the people were first disarmed.” – Walter E. Williams, Author, Economist, Emeritus Trustee at Grove City College and the Reason Foundation.
– Donald Trump
soaking the earth with the blood of tens and tens of millions of their people... There can be no free speech, no freedom of the press, no freedom to protest, no freedom to worship your god, no freedom to speak your mind, no freedom from fear, no freedom for your children and for theirs, for anybody, anywhere, without the Second Amendment freedom to fight for it.” – Charlton Heston, Actor, Civil Rights Activist, President of the NRA from 1998-2003.
“Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.” – Mahatma Gandhi, anti-colonial nationalist who used nonviolent resistance to help gain India's independence from Britain.
Back to the point… The Second Amendment is not about hunting. It’s about the rights of individual citizens as well as the body politic. Here’s how Thomas Jefferson put it in a letter to James Madison in 1787:
“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.”
To show Jefferson was consistent in his thinking later in life, after serving as governor of Virginia, minster to France, secretary of state, vice president, and president and here’s what he wrote in a letter two years before he died:
“The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.”
America’s third president also made it clear when and where he thought it appropriate to carry a firearm:
“Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks.”
Doesn’t sound like he’s talking about hunting, does it?
Which raises the question: How did America become so muddled on an issue specifically and deliberately written into the Bill of Rights to gain support for the ratification of the United States Constitution?
Perhaps some context can help clarify the matter.
After winning its independence from England, America crafted the Articles of Confederation, which were adopted on November 15, 1777, and went into effect March 1, 1781. It did not take long to find out that a loose confederation built on thirteen individual foundations was like constructing a house on shifting sands. The country needed something more substantial and stable, but there was a problem: Some feared a strong federal government as much as they had feared King George and his Redcoats.
What to do?
On May 25, 1787 America’s thirteen states sent representatives to Philadelphia with the stated purpose of trying to fix the Articles of Confederation. Eventually some delegates concluded that one degree or another, that they were better off starting from scratch than trying to fix the un-fixable. Heading this ambitious task was James Madison of Virginia, Father of the Constitution, who would go on to become the fourth President of the United States.
The first public copy of the newly minted document was printed September 19. Copies were submitted on September 28 to the individual states for review. To drum up support, Madison and two others combined forces to promote ratification. They were Alexander Hamilton, a delegate for the Constitutional Convention from New York who later became the first United States Secretary of the Treasury, and John Jay, the nation’s first Chief Justice.
On October 27, Madison, Hamilton, and Jay released Federalist No. 1 – published anonymously under the name Publius. It was to be the first of what would become 85 pro-ratification essays. It’s worth noting that the word “arms” appears more than two dozen times in what was ultimately referred to as “The Federalist Papers.” Here is an example from Federalist No. 46, written by Madison:
“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.”
Hamilton had this to say in Federalist, No. 29:
“If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights and those of their fellow citizens.”
It should be noted that the word “hunt” does not appear in the Federalist Papers, and in Federalist 2, Jay puts the right to bear arms in the context of the recent Revolution and not a hunting trip.
“Who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence.
Despite the efforts of their writing campaign, reaction to the Constitution was mixed, dividing the nation into two main camps: Federalists and Anti-Federalists, the former – generally from the merchant and plantation-owning class and were in favor of the Constitution with its strong federal government while the latter (primarily farmers and tradesmen) were against such centralized power and authority.
At no point during discussion or debate did one side or the other take a position proposing gun control, registration, and/or confiscation. Both sides were for freedom; both sides were for the right to bear arms.
Patrick Henry of Virginia, who was coined for saying he “Give me liberty or give me death!" was an ardent and outspoken AntiFederalist who publicly opposed the new Constitution. His intent was clear: “Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force.”
Henry wasn’t alone. Many forget that those who opposed the Constitution were articulate in their own right and compiled what came to be known as “The Anti-Federalist Papers”– a collection of writings and speeches with this provocatively titled introduction: “A Dangerous Plan of Benefit Only to The Aristocratick Combination.” Here’s but one statement contained therein:
“What then may we expect if the new constitution be adopted as it now stands? The great will struggle for power, honor and wealth; the poor become a prey to avarice, insolence and oppression. And while some are studying to supplant their neighbors, and others striving to keep their stations, one villain will wink at the oppression of another, the people be fleeced, and the public business neglected. From despotism and tyranny good Lord deliver us.”
Sounds like something that could have been posted on a blog yesterday, doesn’t it?
Motives of the Anti-Federalists varied: Some felt delegates to the Constitutional Convention overstepped their authority by proposing a replacement to the Articles of Confederation; others felt the new (and some said “illegal”) Constitution was crafted by wealthy special interests groups; some thought the document concentrated too much power in a federal government at the cost of the individual states. In an attempt to quell the concerns of the opposition, more than two hundred amendments were debated and proposed at the various state ratifying conventions. As expected, the right to bear arms was a key topic all around.
As a side note, Pennsylvania debated more than a dozen possible amendments. Why mention this? Because the Keystone State’s own version of the second amendment does not contain the phrase: “A well-regulated Militia.” More about that later. g
Here’s what Samuel Adams said during the Massachusetts Ratifying Convention in 1788: “The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” Adams was a statesman and political philosopher as well as Founding Father. He was also second cousin to John Adams, second president of the United States and the only president elected to the nation’s highest office as a member of Federalist Party.
During the first session of Congress the initial proposal for a bill of rights was brought to the floor of the House of Representatives on June 8, 1789.
Here’s the passage relating to the right to bear arms:
“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.”
(Some refer to the words “no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person” as the “conscientious objector clause.” That phrase was later removed.)
A select committee reviewed Madison’s submission and returned a reworded version to the House:
“A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.”
The House debated and modified the wording. Here’s the result:
“A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.”
The next day, August 25, the Senate received the amendment from the House, added a comma before “shall not be infringed” and replaced the semicolon that followed with comma:
“A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.”
Here is the final wording as it appears in the U.S. Constitution:
“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.”
It may be tedious to read, compare; re-read, contrast, then reread again the various versions, but think of it this way: The tedium is worthwhile and profitable in that it shows how serious those involved took their responsibility in an attempt to be deliberate and precise as they executed their task. Such intricate craftsmanship is a rebuke to 21st Century tongue-wagers who make casual quips mocking a generation that shed blood and lost family in creating a nation where glib critical remarks can be freely made without significant consequence.
The Bill of Rights in general and the Second Amendment neither was nor is a laughing matter. The issue at the time and even now can pit friend against friend, neighbor against neighbor. Here’s an example:
James Madison’s fellow Virginian George Mason refused to sign the Constitution without a Bill of Rights. Future president James Monroe (also from Virginia) was an Anti-Federalist and chose to run against fellow Founding Father Madison for Congress, the only time two future presidents went head-to-head over a congressional seat. The Father of the Constitution vs. one of its leading opponents. The Federalist vs. the Anti-Federalist. One believing the nation could not survive without the Constitution; the other believing that same document granted too much power to the Federal government and, at the same time, failed The outcome would define America’s future.
In his book Founding Rivals: Madison vs. Monroe, The Bill of Rights, and The Election that Saved a Nation, author Chris DeRose put that decisive and divisive congressional race into historical perspective:
“Madison had been elected to the First Congress by only 336 votes. It was in that Congress that the Bill of Rights was passed, cementing the people’s confidence in the new federal government. And the Constitution was saved. All because of one election.”
Think about the narrowness of that vote count 336 next time you clean your rifle.
More than 200 amendments had been proposed at the various state ratifying conventions. The list was whittled down to the twelve that went before Congress. Those dozen were chosen to quell the concerns of the opposition without alienating supporters.
Of the twelve amendments proposed, ten were ratified as additions to the Constitution on December 15, 1791, later becoming known as the Bill of Rights.
By the way, the original Second Amendment had nothing to do with guns; it had to do with pay raises:
“No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.”
In the kind of twist that trivia buffs treasure, those twenty-four words finally made their way into the Constitution in 1992 as the 27th Amendment – 202 years, seven months, and 10 days after originally proposed.
One additional note: Here is the original not ratified First Amendment:
“After the first enumeration required by the first article of the Constitution, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of Representatives shall amount to two hundred; after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less than two hundred Representatives, nor more than one Representative for every g
What would have been the consequences if that amendment had passed? The House of Representatives would now have more than 6,000 members instead of the current 435. Imagine what that would be like.
The Bill of Rights went into effect in 1791. You’d think that settled the issue of gun rights once and for all. Nope. Not even close.
Let take just one quote from Thomas Jefferson as the line in the sand: “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.”
To see how Jefferson’s comment holds up, let’s place it on one side of the scale, then shovel a slew of statements on the other side and see how things balance out:
President Barack Obama: “I don't believe people should to be able to own guns.” Source: John Lott Jr. in his 2013 book “At the Brink,” based in conversation the two had at the University of Chicago Law School in the 1990s.
Rosie O'Donnell: “I don't care if you want to hunt, I don't care if you think it’s your right. I say, sorry, you are not allowed to own a gun, and if you do own a gun I think you should go to prison.” Source: Jason Mattera writing in Human Events March 19, 2012.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein: “If I could have gotten 51 votes for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, ‘Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ’em all in,’ I would have done it.” Source: 1995 episode of “60 Minutes,” reportedly referring to assault-style weapons.
Then-Sen. Joseph R. Biden: “The House better understand the power of an idea whose time has come. It still will be an uphill fight in the House, but I think the wave is moving.” Source: New York Times article headlined “Senate Approves Ban on Manufacture of Military-Style Weapons” by Clifford Krauss, published Nov. 18, 1993.
Deborah Prothrow-Stith: “I hate guns and cannot imagine why anybody would want to own one. If I had my way, guns for sport would be registered, and all other guns would be banned.” Source: National Review, April 2, 2018. Deborah Prothrow-Stith is Dean and Professor at Charles R. Drew University College of Medicine in Los Angeles, California.
Ms. Prothrow-Stith has every right to her opinion. After all, there is a First Amendment, but as comedian, actor, writer, and producer, Dave Chappelle once said, “The First Amendment is first for a reason. Second Amendment is just in case the first one doesn't work out.” Perhaps no phrase in the Second Amendment is more debated than its opening salvo: “A well-regulated Militia…” It pokes Second Amendment opponents in the eye, sizzles their brains, and shifts their vocal chords into high gear.
What is the militia?
Let’s jump in the way-back machine and gather up some opinions:
“The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws.” – John Adams, America’s Second President.
“For a people who are free, and who mean to remain so, a wellorganized and armed militia is their best security.” – Thomas Jefferson, America’s Third President.
“A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained in arms, is the best most natural defense of a free country.” – James Madison, America’s Fourth President.
“What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now, it must be evident, that, under this provision, together with their other powers, Congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as to make a standing army necessary. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins. This was actually done by Great Britain at the commencement of the late revolution. They used every means in their power to prevent the establishment of an effective militia…” – Elbridge Gerry, Ninth Governor of Massachusetts and Fifth Vice President of the United States.
And here is the punch-line… short, sweet, and right on target:
“I ask you sir, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people.” – George Mason, delegate to the U.S. Constitutional Convention of 1787, one of three who refused to sign the Constitution.
Does everyone agree with those assessments? Of course not. Here are some other thoughts.
“I'm tired of hearing about this 'well-regulated militia' that is so necessary for American freedom.” – Jay Parini, American Writer and Academic.
“There is more hooey spread about the Second Amendment. It says quite clearly that guns are for those who form part of a well-regulated militia, i.e., the armed forces including the National Guard. The reasons for keeping them away from everyone else get clearer by the day.”– Molly Ivins, Newspaper Columnist, Author, Political Commentator, and Humorist.
“If the guy out in the woods with the Michigan Militia is a real estate negotiator, instead of some crackpot, and has a normal life, that's unnerving. You don't want to think it's as normal as the guy next door, hedging his lawn. It's easier to demonize or separate them off from ‘us’.” – Michael Moore, Academy-Award Winning Filmmaker and Best-Selling Author.
“The Second Amendment is, of course, very much part of the American fabric. But the intent of the founders was that the amendment protected the rights of citizens to bear arms in a militia for their collective self-defense.” – Peter Bergen, American Journalist, Author, and Producer who serves as a CNN Colt's Manufacturing Company National Security Analyst.
The question to ask yourself about the wording “well regulated militia” is this: Do you defer to the Founding Fathers and others who supported the Revolution against the British or do you accept the assessment of contemporary humorists, academics, analysts, and Oscar winners?
Let’s move on.
Ralph Waldo Emerson was an American essayist, lecturer, philosopher, and poet. If you could pick just one word to describe him, you might chose “Individualist.” In 1836 Emerson penned what has come to be known as the “Concord Hymn,” written for the 1837 dedication of a monument that commemorated the Battle of Concord that took place on Wednesday, April 19, 1775, about 20 miles northwest of Boston. It was second in a series of clashes that day and resulted in victory for the colonists.
The poem opens this way: “By the rude bridge that arched the flood, Their flag to April’s breeze unfurled, here once the embattled farmers stood, and fired the shot heard round the world.” What was the goal that day when 700 British Army regulars took up their arms? To capture and destroy military supplies reportedly stored by at Concord.
Speaking of military supplies, let’s dispel a notion so drenched in current conversation that the casual observer can hardly tell warp from woof: The AR in AR-15 does not stand for “assault rifle.” It stands for ArmaLite, an American small arms engineering company founded in the mid-1950s in California.
The AR-15 “Boogeyman” of the anti-gun movement is not an assault rifle. It’s a civilian (and legal) version of the M-16. It was designed as a lightweight, gas-powered, selective-fire rifle for the United States Military. It did not make the cut. (For comparison purposes, the AR-15 is heavier, with a shorter range, and a slower rate of fire than the M-16.)
Here’s some background: In 1959, ArmaLite sold its rights to Colt's Manufacturing Company, which eventually modified the design and submitted to the military as the M-16, which was first shipped to troops in Vietnam in 1964. Five years later, the M16A1s replaced M14s as the U.S. military's standard issue rifle. The current standard bearer is the M4, a shorter and lighter variant of the M16A2, which is now the primary infantry weapon in combat units.
That weapon helps makes the infantry strong and fully armed, a biblical principle that can be found in Luke 11:21 which says “When a strong man, fully armed, guards his house, his possessions are safe.”
Seems like great advice.
Don’t like the Bible? No problem. How about Clint Eastwood? g
“I have a very strict gun control policy: if there's a gun around, I want to be in control of it.”
Don’t like the guy who starred in “Fistful of Dollars,” “Dirty Harry,” The Outlaw Josey Wales,” “Pale Rider,” “Unforgiven,” and “Gran Torino”?
What about the voice of Darth Vader, Mufasa, and CNN– James Earl Jones?
“The world is filled with violence. Because criminals carry guns, we decent law-abiding citizens should also have guns. Otherwise they will win and the decent people will lose.”
Maybe you prefer the literary type. If so, read the following warning from William S. Burroughs, Beat Generation author of eighteen novels and novellas, six collections of short stories and four collections of essays.
“After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn't do it.” – William S. Burroughs.
As Rahm Emanuel who once said – “You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.” For those who’ve forgotten, Emanuel served as White House Chief of Staff under President Barack Obama.
Let’s add another name to the pro-Second Amendment side, one unexpected and perhaps forgotten—she was an investigative journalist, anti-lynching crusader, civil rights leader, and one of the founders of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. Her name: Ida B. Wells. Here’s what she said:
“A Winchester rifle should have a place of honor in every black home, and it should be used for that protection which the law refuses to give.”
In an article for National Review, David Harsanyi, author of First Freedom: A Ride through America’s Enduring History with the Gun, argues that no American right (not speech, press, or religion) has a longer and more defined history than the right to self-defense.
Harsanyi also wrote that: “The animating ideas of the Second Amendment – both as personal and communal protection are predicated on natural rights and English common law. And while nearly every intellectual, political, and military leader of the Founding generation stressed the importance of the right to bear arms as a means of preserving liberty, some of its most vociferous champions were against slavery.”
Alan Dershowitz, scholar of constitutional law, had this to say:
“Foolish liberals who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the constitution by claiming it’s not an individual right or that it’s too much of a safety hazard don’t see the danger of the big picture. They're courting disaster by encouraging others g
Want to defend your rights without breaking the bank? Rock Island Armory is about reliable firearms at an affordable price. As the world’s largest manufacturer of 1911s, we’re committed to innovation like the loud and proud TCM – 2100 fps of pure adrenaline – and providing U.S. jobs. Shoot smart. Shoot a rock.
to use this same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don't like.”
There’ another, even more practical point, that has to do with common sense. It was made by President Ronald Reagan: “We must reject the idea that every time a law’s broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.”
To put it another way, the vast majority of gun owners are lawabiding citizens who don’t get in trouble with law enforcement, according to Gary Kleck, criminologist and the David J. Bordua Professor Emeritus of Criminology at Florida State University.
“Probably fewer than two percent of handguns and well under one percent of all guns will ever be involved in a violent crime. Thus, the problem of criminal gun violence is concentrated within a very small subset of gun owners, indicating that gun control aimed at the general population faces a serious needlein-the-haystack problem,” Kleck said.
Economist, political commentator, and gun rights advocate John R. Lott, Jr., concurs. Lott is the author of “More Guns Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws,” now in its third edition.
“Our most conservative estimates show that by adopting shallissue laws (concealed carry laws), states reduced murders by 8.5 percent, rapes by five percent, aggravated assaults by seven percent and robbery by three percent... While support for strict gun-control laws usually has been strongest in large cities, where crime rates are highest, that's precisely where right-tocarry laws have produced the largest drops in violent crimes.” It doesn’t take much digging to find scholars, lawyers, writers, and actors, who agree with the Founding Fathers about the Second Amendment. Let’s wrap things up with the opening words of “A Few More Rednecks” by Charlie Daniels on his album “Freedom and Justice for All.”
That won’t happen anytime soon. Why? Because President Donald J. Trump said so:
“Gun and magazine bans are a total failure... Opponents of gun rights try to come up with scary sounding phrases like ‘assault weapons,’ ‘military-style weapons’ and ‘high capacity magazines’ to confuse people. What they’re really talking about are popular semi-automatic rifles and standard magazines that are owned by tens of millions of Americans. Law-abiding people should be allowed to own the firearm of their choice. The government has no business dictating what types of firearms good, honest people are allowed to own.” – President Donald J. Trump
Jim Lamb is a retired journalist who went to college on the GI Bill. He served in the United States Navy and was stationed in Vietnam where he kept a loaded M-16 at his workspace.
