Try Reading the Entire Second Amendment

[jmg257]

5. Pretty simple actually. I don't know why anyone would think it doesn't just mean what it says.

It identifies the necessity of a well functioning Militia. It secures the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

The Militias let We the people avoid the dependence on that bane of liberty, a large standing army...because a large standing army is THE source of power of a tyrannical government.

Besides ensuring the right to keep and bear arms (individually), it was imperative that the people themselves make up the Militias.
Who better ("necessary...".) to secure the liberties of the people then the people themselves? The Militias of the Several States, made from the body of the people, were entities that exisited long before the Constitution, and especially under the Articles of Confederation. In the Constiution they were given very specific very important roles in securing our freedom.

But the Congress was given the powers formally left to the states - to, not only provide for how the state Militias would be called up for federal use, but to dictate how those exisiting Militias were to be organized, trained and armed (the people would supply their own arms to avoid govt control). Why? So they would be most effective...our freedom depended on it! (note congress was NOT given any power to create OR re-create the Militias as a part of the federal military).

Bottom line - the 2nd amendment is to ensure the government can not disarm the people. It secures the right of the people - individually and collectivelly - to bear arms. Certainly 'self-defence' and 'the taking of wild game' were a given, just as much as the common defence.

"well-regulated" is WHY the Congress was given the powers of organization and training...The Militias being well-trained, well armed and, due to conformity - well-functioning, would be assured (they weren't under the AoC) - it was now the law of the land. And because Congress was given that power is WHY the security of the right was enumerated.


This is the amendment as 1st proposed by Madison. It clearly shows the intent:

"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."

Of course the militia declaration in the 2nd has been obsoleted by the people due to our acceptance of a large (HUGE) standing army, and the nationalizing of the militia via the National Guard. By 1900, the level of effectiveness of the Militias of the Several States in fighting our wars of conquest left something to be desired.

Just as well - if the Militia declaration still held much merrit, all the people would have access to to all the current arms of the military - M16s, M4s, M9s etc. Also things like gun free zones, municipalites and cities would take a big hit.