This analysis does not intend to imply that a citizen does not possess an inherent right to self-defense.

“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.”

The meaning of this amendment has been argued at ad infinitum.

Allow us to assume that this amendment reads:
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

That would appear to be crystal clear, but why would an amendment be necessary to state the obvious, since anyone who wanted arms had arms? 

The actual amendment appears to become clarified when we add: “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state”.

That appears to define, with specificity, the meaning, i.e., the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed is due to the necessity of being able to call citizens, when and if necessary, to form a well-regulated militia for the purpose of augmenting the standing army for the ultimate purpose of the defense of the nation.

When citizens would be called to serve in a well-regulated militia, it was necessary that they bring arms, thus no authority should be able to deny the possession of the requisite arms.

DISCUSSION: James Madison and Alexander Hamilton were involved in discussions as to whether to have a large standing army or a small one which could be supplemented by a call-up of citizens.  

Since we were a growing nation and needed farmers, builders, etc., they opted for a smaller cadre military.

It appears that the conclusion was that the organized militia (the army) could augment its forces if and when required.  

It is, further, probable that the State National Guard system and the military’s reserve system is the metamorphosis of the intended, but out-dated, “well-regulated militia”.

Thus, it appears that there is no possible phenomenon as a “well-regulated militia” or any possibility thereof, in the United States of America.  

CONCLUSION: It appears the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution does not imply an inherent right for an individual to keep and bear arms for any purpose other than to be able to participate in a “well-regulated militia”.

Furthermore, since the “well-regulated militia” has been subjugated by the ORGANIZED militia, this amendment is without significance, i.e., has no meaning or consequence.

ADDITIONALLY: This analysis does not intend to imply that a citizen does not possess an inherent right to self-defense.  

This analysis is being presented for the sole purpose to reflect that the intent and basis for the 2nd Amendment have been eliminated, thus the functionality of this amendment has been eliminated and cannot and must not be relied upon to build any legal edifice upon that defective foundation.

Again, when our nation was in its youth, the 2nd Amendment was necessary and functional for the security of free State.

  1. Stuart Herold says:

    You have tripped yourself up from the beginning. The argument as it is stated here has two glaring errors within its contents (and likely more). The first glaring issue is the first statement in the “Discussion” section. The debate that was discussed in the Federalist 24 and Anti-Federalist 24 was about allowing the National government to maintain a standing army at all. Size of the standing army was NOT the discussion. The other issue is much more esoteric, and is about the definition of the “free State”. Remember that the State of Virginia ratified the States own Constitution a month before the United State Constitution was adopted and it stated that, “a well regulated Militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free State.” Other states added similar language as well. Pennsylvania went so far as to include such language as, “the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. Keep in mind from the beginning that the Bill of Rights was added to Guarantee that these Rights be beyond question or reproach even by the government or court.

    While this was only one item that the new Congress was battleing of many, It was obviously one that was hotly debated even until today.

  2. michael zitterman says:

    Stuart, you appear to have presented interesting comments, but you appear to be non-responsive to:

    “Allow us to assume this Amendment reads:
    The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

    That would appear to be crystal clear, but why would an amendment be necessary to state the obvious, since anyone who wanted arms had arms?

    The actual amendment appears to become clarified when we add: “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state”.

    That appears to define, with specificity, the meaning, i.e., the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed is due to the necessity of being able to call citizens, when and if necessary, to form a well-regulated militia for the purpose of augmenting the standing army for the ultimate purpose of the defense of the nation.

    When citizens would be called to serve in a well-regulated militia, it was necessary that they bring arms, thus no authority should be able to deny the possession of the requisite arms.”

    Thank you,

    michael zitterman

  3. Because a well regulated militia is necessary to to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. This is for the people to protect themselves from the well regulated militia which is necessary.

    I, and millions of my combat veteran buddies, will ensure that this principled understanding of the 2nd amendment is protected from all enemies, foreign and domestic .

    • michael zitterman says:

      Hi Jeff, thank you for your thoughts, but it would work better if you were to point out anything within the piece with which you disagree and state why you disagree.

      Personal feelings are not fruitful.

      Thank you.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>