Supreme Court Poised to Rule on the Second Amendment

Last October 14^th, I posted an article on AssociatedContent, stating that a re-examination of the Second Amendment to the Constitution and the concept of gun control were overdue. The needs and demands of the eighteenth century, when the Second Amendment to the Constitution was drafted, are not totally applicable to current society. The proponents of gun control and those in favor of a virtually unfettered right of an individual's right to own a gun unfortunately tend to think in terms of slogans and bumper stickers. Others profess to be hunters who choose to search for their food rather than visiting the local supermarket, establishing their ability to conquer unarmed deer.

The Second Amendment has engendered controversy and argument that far exceed the length of the Amendment itself. The Amendment states, in full: "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."

Contextually, this amendment is unique. Each of the other provisions of the Bill of Rights creates a limitation on the power of Congress to take certain actions. No qualifying terms are used, no "reason" for the prohibition is offered. (Parenthetically, there is a similar qualifier or rationale in the Decalogue. Among the prohibitions, one must not kill, lie, steal, covet, and so forth is the direction that one should "honor mother and father". This is a positive command and is accompanied by the explanation, ". . . so that your days may be long. ")

So, what is the purpose of the qualifying phrase, "A well regulated militia being necessary ..."? Is the Amendment designed to provide for an organized militia with which the nation's safety can be secured or is it a guarantee that each individual has the right to possess a firearm. Those opposing any restriction on gun ownership commonly choose to ignore the qualifying phrase.