ULRICK

      Currently, there is much concern about the true meaning and intent of the second amendment, and whether it is still applicable to our times.  For instance, some people today insist the second amendment was meant - or should be used - only to protect hunters; some opponents of private gun ownership think the amendment is meant only to protect the autonomy of the states.  In truth, the second amendment is for neither; there are a much different meaning and purpose to the amendment considered by its (and our nation's) conceivers to be relevant to any time.  These can only be found by examining the words of the forefathers themselves.

      Regrettably, the language of the Constitution is often so distorted, that its words are stripped until void of their original (true) meanings.  To discover these true meanings, and thereby the true meaning of the second amendment, it is crucial to examine the definitions used in the time of the right's creation. 

      In A compendious Dictionary of the English Language of 1806, Noah Webster, perhaps history's most famous linguist, defines the terms used in the amendment.  Webster said that "The militia of the country are the able bodied men."  "Regulated" means "adjusted by rule, method, or forms; put in good order; subject to rules or restrictions."  He defines "people" as "the commonality, as distinct from men of rank."  "Bear" is "to carry," and "arms" are "weapons."1  Clearly, the second amendment guarantees the right to a militia, made of the free men, but subject to rules and limitations, the right  of  the common civilians to keep and carry weapons. 

      Lest we accept one man's voice as truth, however, let us examine, too, the very words of the founding fathers.  The authors of the American Constitution and nation defined more than once the meaning of the word "militia."  Jefferson once said, "We cannot be defended but by making every citizen a soldier."2  In Virginia, during the ratification proceedings, George Mason said, "I ask now who are the militia?  They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officials."3  Mason described "a well regulated Militia, composed of the Gentlemen, Freeholders, and other Freemen."4    Patrick Henry also mentioned "a well regulated Militia" as being "composed of Gentlemen and Yeomen."5

      James Madison, who wrote the second amendment, specified more than once that it is the people who must have the right to bear arms.  At a time when the adult male citizenship was about 800,000,6 Madison described "a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves."7  He also wrote that the ultimate authority resides in the people because of  "the advantage of being armed which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation."8  A friend of Madison's wrote in a June 18, 1789 commentary on the Bill of Rights that, "the people are confirmed by [the Second Amendment] in their right to keep and bear their private arms."9   Clearly, "Militia" means the people's army, not one of a government.  A "militia" is of private people with their "private" arms.

      This true meaning of "militia" must not confused; it must not be thought of as any government standing army - or any government institution.  The "people" in the amendment are nothing other than the common people.  The Bill of Rights, of which the second amendment is a crucial part, is about the relationship between the government and the people, and the founding fathers were always careful to use the word "People" when they meant the people and "Government" when they meant government.  From even a mere cursory examination of the Declaration of Independence and other elements of the Constitution, this veracity is made clear.

      The fathers also recognized the difference between any standing army and the people.  Samuel Adams said, "A standing army, however necessary it may be at some times, is always dangerous to the liberties of the people."10  Jefferson commented on the people's fears of a standing army and potential federal dictatorship by saying, if attacked, the people will be defended by "every man able to bear arms."11  Noah Webster, famous for his knowledge of words and definitions, said, "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed,"12 and recognized that any standing army is not one of the people.

      The difference between any standing army and a militia was also clearly defined.  At the federal convention, August, 1787, during debates over militias and standing armies, Jefferson said, "The greatest danger to liberty is from large standing armies, it is best to prevent them by an effectual provision for a good militia."13 In his words, Jefferson recognized that any standing army is not a militia - that there exists a difference between the two.  Said Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, "What, sir, is the use of a militia?  It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty."14  The fathers obviously thought of standing armies and militias as two distinct entities.

            A state national guard fits not the forefathers definition of militia, either.   A national guard is not of the common people; a national guard is a standing army of the government, of people of special rank.  What we today know as a national guard was commonly referred to by the forefathers not as a militia, but as a "select militia; that is,... particular corps or bodies of young men,... particularly armed and disciplined in some measure, at the public expence, and always ready to take the field.... not much unlike regular troops."15  That description indeed is of a modern state national guard - not a militia of the people.  The second amendment is guaranteeing "the right of the people" - not the states - to keep and carry arms.  The "right of the people" is the same phrase used in the first amendment; wouldn't it be absurd to assume that the "right of the people peaceably to assemble" were meant only for state-appointed officials?

      The second amendment guarantees not, however, the right to unrestrained paramilitary activity.  The militia of the people is to be "well regulated" - "subject to rules or restrictions," as Webster wrote.  People are not granted access to unlimited firepower or devices of mass and utter destruction, such as nuclear weapons, unimaginable in the eighteenth century.  The terms "bear" and "arms" suggest the people are limited to smaller weapons, such as what can be carried by foot soldiers.  Webster described "fire arms" as "such as may be charged with powder."16 

      Though the range of arms protected by the second amendment is not made explicit in the wording, there is a definite purpose of the amendment - the arms protected under the amendment surely include the bare minimum needed for that intended objective.  That objective is to insure that the people always have the final rule - that in America there shall never be tyranny.  Nuclear weapons and such go beyond this purpose and are best classified as devices of mass destruction.  Handguns and rifles, by any honest interpretation, are of the "arms" in the second amendment.

      Whatever be the full range of arms, the purpose of the amendment remains remarkably clear; it is important to realize the second amendment, specifically, and the Bill of Rights, generally, were intended to protect the people from the sort tyranny the founding fathers had to overcome.  That purpose must be established for any understanding of the amendment and range of arms protected by it.  That deliberate purpose of the second amendment is more than clear from the following quotes. 

      Pennsylvania proposed the amendment "The people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves or their state...."17  New Hampshire proposed the amendment "Congress shall never disarm any citizens unless such as are or have been in Actual Rebellion."18  Ultimately, Madison's version would be accepted with the rest of what he wrote in the Bill of Rights.

      George Washington said:

 "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself.  They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence....  From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace, security, and happiness, the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable....  The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference--they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."19

      Thomas Jefferson also recognized the timeless need for arms.  When justifying a specific rebellion, he wrote about the Rights of any time: that the Men in the Government "[derive] their just powers from the consent of the governed.... That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, or to institute a new Government" (Declaration of Independence).  Here, he was again recognizing the difference between the people and the government and implying that there always must be some way for the people, if necessary,  to alter or abolish the existing government.  In his words Jefferson was including the way of  him and the colonies - that last recourse for only when words have no effect: a rebellion of war.  Jefferson did say, "We cannot be defended but by making every citizen a soldier."20

      It is clear what the founding fathers meant by the second amendment. It is clear why they wrote it.  Whether or not it is still considered necessary does not change its meaning, nor does it change the philosophy that propelled the fathers to write the amendment.  The founding fathers specified the way in which the Constitution must be changed, so even if one doesn't consider the second amendment a timeless need, even if one doesn't agree that there should be a militia of the common people, there is no reason - or justification - to ignore or distort the original meaning in the founding fathers' words. 

      But there is an important reason why, if liberty is to prevail, we cannot.  If we ignore the meanings they intended for their words, then we are ignoring the document itself.  Obviously, if we ignore the document, it is useless as the principle law of the land, and we no longer have a land ruled by laws, but a precarious land ruled by "Men" of Government.

      Benjamin Franklin told to us what we have: "a Republic, if you can keep it."21  We cannot if we ignore the Document which gave us the Republic.

________

*Each quote is the words of the respective founding father.  In all paraphrases and quotes, original spelling, capitalization, and diction have been preserved.  Underlining is by me, for emphasis

1Halbrook, Stephen P. A right to Bear Arms. New York: Greenwood Press, 1989. p. 101.

2Gottleib, Alan.  Rights of Gun Owners. Aurora, IL: Caroline House Publishers, 1981. 

3Gottleib, Alan.  Rights of Gun Owners. Aurora, IL: Caroline House Publishers, 1981.

4Halbrook, Stephen P. A right to Bear Arms. New York: Greenwood Press, 1989. p. 52.

5Halbrook, Stephen P. A right to Bear Arms. New York: Greenwood Press, 1989. p. 52.

6Gottleib, Alan.  Rights of Gun Owners. Aurora, IL: Caroline House Publishers, 1981.

7The Foederalist, No. 45. Cited in: Young, David (editor). The Origin of the Second Amendment, Golden Oak Books, Ontanagon, MI, 1991, p. 234

8The Foederalist, No. 45. Cited in: Young, David (editor). The Origin of the Second Amendment, Golden Oak Books, Ontanagon, MI, 1991, p. 234-235.

9Kates, Don B., Jr. Second Amendment. Bellevue, WA: Second Amendment Foundation, 1982. p.20.

10Gottleib, Alan.  Rights of Gun Owners. Aurora, IL: Caroline House Publishers, 1981.

11Gottleib, Alan.  Rights of Gun Owners. Aurora, IL: Caroline House Publishers, 1981.

12Webster, Noah.  "A Citizen of North America," October 10, 1787.  Cited in: Young, David. The Origin of the Second Amendment, Golden Oak Books, Ontanagon, MI, 1991, p. 40.

13Excerpts from the Federal Convention Debates, Aug. 23, 1787.  Cited in: Young, David. The Origin of the Second Amendment, Golden Oak Books, Ontanagon, MI, 1991, p.10.

14Book by the Commission on the Bicentennial of the United States Constitution; Warren E. Burger, Chairman. 1791-1991 The Bill of Rights and Beyond. 1991 p. 26.

15Federal Farmer, May 1788 (pamphlet)  Cited in: Young, David (editor). The Origin of the Second Amendment, Golden Oak Books, Ontanagon, MI, 1991, p. 355.

16Halbrook, Stephen P. A right to Bear Arms. New York: Greenwood Press, 1989. p. 101.

17Gottleib, Alan.  Rights of Gun Owners. Aurora, IL: Caroline House Publishers, 1981.

18Gottleib, Alan.  Rights of Gun Owners. Aurora, IL: Caroline House Publishers, 1981.

19Gottleib, Alan.  Rights of Gun Owners. Aurora, IL: Caroline House Publishers, 1981.

20Gottleib, Alan.  Rights of Gun Owners. Aurora, IL: Caroline House Publishers, 1981.

21Pamphlet: "The Constitution of the United States." By the Commission on the Bicentennial of the United States Commission; Warren E. Burger, Chairman.