I have always been fascinated by how people interpret the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. One interpretation in particular seems quite illogical and quite incorrect: It grants the federal government the power to heavily regulate arms. I am not sure how anyone can read into the Second Amendment that the federal government can infringe upon the right of the individual to bear arms through heavy regulations. Here is the full text of the Second Amendment so you can see for yourself:
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.
Some people read that statement to mean the people and their arms must be well regulated (heavily regulated) by the federal government. It's quite interesting for someone to hold so tightly to the two words “well regulated” that they change the meaning of the whole sentence. Those two words clearly observe instead of prescribe. Some people express those two words in a way that happily limits their liberty to protect themselves from harm using a great tool...arms. When I question why they feel this need to regulate self-protection, most of the time they say it is needed because unregulated freedom is dangerous. It is as if they are on a mission to wipe danger completely from the face of the earth. Nice thought, but not reality.
It is quite easy to dispel this interpretation of the Second Amendment when you read the preamble to the Bill Of Rights. The Bill of Rights is the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution and includes the Second Amendment mentioned above (for those not familiar with the U.S. Constitution). The preamble clearly states the sole purpose of the Bill of Rights is to “prevent misconstruction or abuse of its [the constitution's] powers” and to add “further declaratory and restrictive clauses” directed at the Government. Check it out for yourself:
THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution
RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.:
ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.
When I read the Second Amendment I see a clear statement protecting liberty. I think another reason this amendment is greatly misunderstood is because we have forgotten what a militia is and how important it is. It would do us some good to get back to our militia customs and the mindset of individual independence while protecting ourselves and our neighbors as neighbors should. It is how we won our revolution for independence against the strongest military in the world.
I just don't understand why some people prefer being regulated and restricted by politicians in government. Just look around at the politics of today. Maybe they project guilt for their own liberty and don't trust themselves with it? Who knows.
