Second Amendment Logic

The right to bear arms and the subject of “gun control” has evoked strong sentiment from various groups within our society and much debate has been held over how the 2nd Amendment should be interpreted, but relatively little discussion has been made over the actual wisdom of retaining or repealing this contentious civil right. Perhaps such an exchange would provide both sides of the “gun debate” with a greater understanding of the legitimate concerns and fears of the other.

The 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution passed in 1791 provides as follows: “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.”

What exactly were the founding fathers thinking? Consider the following samples:

"Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: first, a right to life, secondly to liberty, thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can." -- Samuel Adams

"Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private self-defense." – John Adams

"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." -- Thomas Jefferson

Having experienced first-hand the oppression of English rule the founding fathers believed that the individual right to possess firearms was an essential protection against tyrannical rule and sought to preserve the ability of individuals to rise up and overthrow any government that sought to impose its own views over those of the people. Given the life experiences of the colonists, the 2nd Amendment protections made sense and appear to have been a prudent reservation of power in the hands of ordinary citizens. Whether that rationale remains true today is another question.

I've watched news accounts over the years about the federal government sending teams of experts and high-tech equipment around the country trying to detect radioactive material. The efforts are part of an on-going security operation designed to guard against terrorism though the use of nuclear or radioactive “dirty” bombs. Knowing those radioactive material locater teams were roving the country certainly gave me a feeling of greater safety, but it also provoked a question that goes to the core of the 2nd Amendment. Were it necessary for our own citizens to rise up against a tyrannical government in this country, what would it take for the people to re-establish their own sovereignty? Swords? Muskets? Tanks? Nuclear weapons?

On one hand, the thought of individuals owning nuclear weapons is a ludicrous suggestion. In a matter of hours, the entire country would resemble our pothole-filled Pennsylvania highways. On the other hand, if the overthrow of a tyrannical United States government were necessary in this day and age, nothing short of nuclear weaponry would suffice. Where then do we draw the line?

Some individuals want to possess firearms to hunt. Some wish to protect themselves, their families and their property. Others wish to defend themselves against what they see as an oppressive and tyrannical federal government. All three groups share the same concerns of the founding fathers and would seem to have legitimate claims to protection of their right to bear arms under the 2nd Amendment.

To insure 2nd Amendment protections are meaningful one ought to ask, “What are arms?” To the colonists arms meant muskets and muzzle-loaded pistols. It meant cannons too. Not many folks owned them, but a few of the wealthy did. If our goal is to preserve the original intent of the framers, shouldn’t we allow folks to own as many muskets, muzzle-loaded pistols and cannons as they wish and regulate the rest under the theory that our new automatic weapons aren’t arms? However, if the term “arms” within the meaning of the 2nd Amendment includes any weapon necessary for the overthrow of a tyrannical government, shouldn’t assault weapons, tanks and nuclear devices be considered “arms” too? After all, those would be the only kinds of weapons that would stand a chance against our own military if a citizen uprising were necessary. Surely, the founding fathers did not intend our right to bear weapons against government tyranny to be an ineffectual right?

It would seem that following 2nd Amendment logic takes us to some rather absurd and unacceptable conclusions. However, instead of trying to engage in twisted logic to rectify gun-control legislation in one form or another with the 2nd Amendment, perhaps it's time we ask ourselves the broader question of whether the 2nd Amendment is worth keeping.