A BIT MORE ON THE SECOND AMENDMENT

In my previous posting I discussed what I believe to be a fundamental flaw to the reading of the second Amendment to the United States Constitution. My opinion is based primarily on the lack of emphasis on the beginning of the words of the Amendment which says; "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State". When the writers of this Amendment formed this wording there was a specific purpose. One of the major concerns was the fear that the newly created Federal Government would abuse its power and authority to the detriment of the individual States. The States which were prevented by "Federal" law to maintain "standing armies" had no choice except to rely on citizen militias to at least in theory protect their sovereignty from an oppressive national government.

The question of whether the wording of the language stating; "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" was the natural text that would follow the preface wording concerning "a well regulated militia" or was in fact intended to give the right of each and every person (citizen) the right to keep and bear as many "arms" as they chose is one that could and will likely be debated for decades to come.

While the historical relevance dating back to English doctrines in support of individual rights to own and maintain weapons is well grounded and was most likely carried into the discussions for the creation of the Second Amendment, it should also be noted that all these documents were created in the late 18th century when not only the population of the United States was, according to the first federal census taken on August 2, 1790, estimated to be 3,929,214 "countable" people, which is only about 1.3% of the current U.S. popultion AND the "arms" or weapons available to and used by individuals at the time of ratification of the Amendments was extremely primitive (to say the least) when compared to the modern weapons available to all citizens today. As an example, legislation was enacted on May 8,1792 that provided federal standards for the organization of the militia. Section 1 states in part that; "every citizen enrolled in a State militia, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball, or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot pouch and powder horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle and shall appear so armed when called into service".

Even if the "right" of individual people to bear and keep arms as of 1789 is conceded, it seems that the relevance in the world of the 21st century, the vastly improved technology, the dramatic change from an agrarian to an industrial society and a population approaching 300,000,000 is almost non existent. Could the creators of the Constitution and the initial Amendments possibly have considered the future effects of the Second Amendment if applied to conditions over 200 years into their future? If so, is it at all reasonable that these great and wise men would have proceeded with the documents as they were written? Another thought is to consider if the creators of the U.S. Constitution would even have thought their efforts and documents would even survive over 200 years or would they have made the natural assumption that future leaders would certainly have made the necessary changes as conditions in the world around them changed?

One of the primary tenets and indeed reasons for the existence of Government (and mentioned throughout the most important of our documents) is to provide for the general welfare of the citizens of the country. An argument could then be made that it is the distinct responsibilty of both the Federal and State Governments to revisit the validity of the Second (and possibly other) Amendment when viewed with the knowledge that there are well over 100 million weapons in the hands of a civilian population and that reality could very well place the "general welfare" of all citizens in jeopardy because the active use of these weapons on an unsuspecting public is strictly in the hearts and minds of those "bearing the arms". Despite the written document, some measure of reason and common sense must come into play at some point.

It is TIME TO THINK AGAIN