New (to me) interpretation of the 2A

[Carnes]

One of the best interpretations I've heard develops the relevant context regarding the fact that the founders had just gotten done fighting a war against a well regulated militia.

The 2A opens by mentioning that a well regulated militia is nescessary to the security of a free state. When read in the context of the day that clause pretty clearly identifies the militia as a nescessary evil, that the second clause, regarding that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, is supposed to protect the people against.

When I read the 2A in the sense that the militia was considered a nescessary evil, it makes perfect sense in terms of the context of the day and the founders' undenyably clear dislike of a standing army. A standing army was unacceptable, but a militia was considered a nescessary evil, because even with a militia, there is a significant amount of unchecked power. Thus, the right to keep and bear arms is necessarily an individual right to act as a check against the power of a militia.

And that seals the deal without even having to go into the fact that along with individual rights, self defense was clearly understood as an individual responsibility.

[FormerUser123]

Also keep in mind that the term militia, for them, meant every able bodied male old enough to serve.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Militia

[Carnes]

Also keep in mind that the term militia, for them, meant every able bodied male old enough to serve.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Militia

I think the 'well regulated' part of the amendment put the militia they were talking about in the 2A somewhere between a standing army, and the militia that consists of every able bodied male old enough to serve. Like the National Guard, it's a well trained, organized and equipped force, but it is not a standing army.

So the 2A says, because it is necessary for the security of a free state to have a well trained military force that can deploy quickly in times of need, we are going to emphasize in the bill of rights that the government will not infringe on the God given right for people to protect themselves with weapons so that there is a check held against that power.



The concept of checking power is being largely ignored in modern times. The founders understood and made it clear that no man can be trusted to act responsibility when holding power. That was not to say that no one would, but that men cannot be trusted to do so. Thus, the founders determined that everywhere that men hold power, there has to be something in place to check the power, to create a competing interest that keeps the person with the power from doing too much damage.

If you have a gun, the gun gives you power, but there is another guy with a gun around the corner that checks that power. A well regulated militia, like the National Guard, wields a lot of power and an armed population protected by the 2A checks that power.

What sucks is thinking about all the .gov organizations created in modern times that just go almost completely unchecked. What is the proposed power check to whoever is going to be in charge of every citizen's health care?