Second Amendment's Right to Bear Arms Requires Re-examination

Conditions in 21st Century Are Not Comparable to Those in 18th

The concept of gun control is in need of re-examination and re-interpretation; 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 problems cannot be fully addressed by slogans on bumper stickers.

The Second Amendment has engendered controversy and argument that far exceeds 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 directs 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 posses a firearm.

The answer is, likely, both with the major emphasis on the former. To really understand the Second Amendment, one must appreciate the context in which it was drafted, the societal conditions of the eighteenth century and the historical experiences that made it important.