The second amendment

The second amendment of the U.S. Constitution has become a big part of the gun control debate. This document has generally supported the gun rights crowd, but it hasn't been a definitive argument. Part of the problem with the second amendment is that things have changed significantly in the centuries that have passed since it became a part of American law. Since I'm mentioning the second amendment, I might as well include it with this post:

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.

Before I go any further, I should probably point out that some words have changed meaning in the last 200+ years. This is part of the reason that interpretation has been necessary.


Some of the rights guaranteed by the constitution reflected the American Revolutionary War. British soldiers tried to disarm citizens and invaded homes. In many ways, the second amendment was designed to protect the right to revolt should the nation become too controlling. Citizens don't have the right to acquire military-grade weapons. Even if they did, they couldn't afford an arms race with the military. Additionally, soldiers no longer rely on other people's homes in times of war.

I'm also going to share the third amendment since it also seems to relate to revolting against the government. The idea that these two amendments were consecutive could indicate that there could have been a relationship between the two.

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

It seems to me that the primary purpose of the second amendment is obsolete. While it is generally believed that the right to keep and bear arms took into consideration the value of firearms to protect our rights, which could potentially be combined with the word "security" in the second amendment, this is actually unclear. At this point, it seems that the best approach is to reevaluate the role of guns in this country and further amend the constitution.

I'm not saying all of this as an attack on gun rights activists. The truth is that both sides of this issue should desire a constitutional amendment. If you believe in gun rights, relying on an outdated law is not the ideal approach. You should be pursuing an amendment relevant to modern times that clearly protects the rights to possess firearms for personal defense.

The need for an amendment should be more obvious for those who want strict controls. The current constitutional amendments include that particularly troublesome second amendment, which is a very real but shaky obstacle to their goals. Additionally, state rights could be brought into this (although state rights are now typically ignored by the federal government). Strict gun control would only have real value on a federal level since giving the power to states would mean that people in a state with strict gun controls could easily go to a state with more lenient laws. I'm not convinced that the constitution (again, this is frequently ignored) grants the federal government the right to control gun laws at a state level.

I have plans to post more about the gun control debate in the future. More specifically, I want explain why we need a fresh start on the whole debate.