The Second Amendment: The Most Inconvenient Truth Of All

“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.”

I am constantly amazed by the anti-gun positions held by so-called experts in constitutional law. Confusing the language of the opening statement between a justification clause or a preferatory clause, both of which were in popular usage in that era, is one thing. But to call oneself a constitutional scholar, having studied the various writings of the framers and their peers about the need for an armed citizenry, and then still believe that the Second Amendment refers to some vague collective right tied to participation in a militia, is simply absurd on its face.

The debate over the meaning of “a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State” has waxed and waned over the years. But here’s what gets it for me: Imagine, if you will, that the language of the Second Amendment were applied to books:

“A well regulated library system, being necessary to the literacy of a free State, the right to keep and bear books shall not be infringed”

Can you imagine, in any way, shape or form, interpreting that statement to mean that only libraries can have books? Or that books can be restricted to only those who have a valid library card? Or that only government licensed authors can write books?

Language notwithstanding, our framers and their peers wrote extensively about private gun ownership.

No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
—Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776.

[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
—James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 46

[T]he people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them.
—Zachariah Johnson, at the Virginia Convention, explaining how the new Constitution could never result in religious persecution or other oppression

[C]onceived it to be the privilege of every citizen, and one of his most essential rights, to bear arms, and to resist every attack upon his liberty or property, by whomsoever made. The particular states, like private citizens, have a right to be armed, and to defend, by force of arms, their rights, when invaded.
— Roger Sherman, during House consideration of a militia bill (1790)

So my question, then, is how can one refer to themselves as a constitutional scholar, or even a student of constitutional law, and even consider the idea as serious that the Second Amendment means anything other than a) individual citizens have the right to keep (possess) and bear (carry with them) arms (firearms), and b) this right shall not be infringed? How is that possible?

Yet clearly such “learned” people do hold to the collective rights position. That is until the Supreme Court ruled in Heller vs. D.C. that the Constitution does, indeed, recognize an individual right.

But then there is that pesky “shall not be infringed” business. Given our current mish-mash of federal, state, and local laws that restrict what guns can be purchased, whether a license is needed, where it can be carried, and what features it has, it seems obvious that some folks still can’t read. Or don’t want to.

The simple truth is really this: These people know exactly what the Second Amendment says and means, and they just don’t like it. They don’t like the idea that the power of government should be overshadowed by the power of the citizenry. They don’t like the idea that citizens should be capable of defending themselves without police. They prefer that you die at the hands of a criminal in front of one of a myriad of security cameras, instead of “allowing” you to produce a weapon and deter a crime. And they really, really don’t like the idea that “arms” might refer to something other than a handgun with a seven round magazine, a pretty skeetgun, or an iron-sighted hunting rifle.

The truth of the Second Amendment is, indeed, inconvenient if your goal is to effectively disarm the populace. For what purposes, well, that’s for each of us to determine. I, for one, subscribe to the Franklin philosophy: “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety”