The Real Intent
of the Second Amendment
By Siddique Malik
Louisville, KY
smalik94@hotmail.com
The Second Amendment to the
US Constitution has served the Union magnificently,
but America’s gun enthusiasts knowingly
or unknowingly discount its significance. They
are, or pretend to be, under the impression that
the sole purpose of this monumental appurtenance
of the Constitution was and continues to be a
fig leaf for their ammunition obsessions. This
trivialization is disgustingly unfair.
This amendment was ratified as a part of the Bill
of Rights on Dec. 15, 1791, a time of America’s
infancy. The Constitution was passing through
its early formative years, and a nascent nation
was trying to launch the process of democratic
evolution which was destined to take it to the
zenith of glory. I think that during this crucial
phase of our history, the framers sensed the need
for a strong deterrent that could keep the federal
government from usurping the rights of confederating
units. Nothing undermines the process of political
evolution and the prospects of national cohesion
in a country -- especially a new one -- more than
a central government bent upon amassing powers.
Thus, the movers of this amendment wanted to ensure
that no federal government could become such a
usurper. Also, their intent must have been to
provide states with a localized mechanism of protecting
law and order -- in those days it was not going
to be easy for the federal government to rush
to the aid of a state in distress -- and at the
same time initiate a culture of administrative
decentralization.
A central government with suppressive tools quickly
becomes arrogant and dictatorial and consequently
aloof to the specific needs of the country’s
regional components, a scenario that can be anything
but favorable to national cohesion. Even today,
political leaders in many countries intentionally
fail to fathom this cardinal rule of fairness,
and this is one of the reasons for the misery
and strife with which their unfortunate people
continue to be confronted. We are lucky that the
framers understood this more than two centuries
ago and established the Second Amendment’s
sanction of “a well regulated Militia”.
Visionaries, they certainly were!
How could the concept of state militias ensure
fairness on the part of the federal government?
How could it not? In those days, the ability of
any state to raise an armed force must have matched
the central government’s ability to do the
same. It can be easily argued that the thought
that a state could possibly start a constitutionally
sanctioned armed struggle against the center over
the issue of the former’s rights kept our
first few presidents from encroaching upon state
rights. Non-interference in state affairs thus
became a well-entrenched federal habit and a nationally
accepted standard of conducting federal-state
affairs. Consequently, today, no state in the
Union needs to launch an armed attack on Washington
to secure its rights. Clearly, the Second Amendment
was an epochal act of self-discipline on the part
of its creators that cannot be over-praised.
Alas, today, this great amendment is perceived
as nothing more than a tool of self-aggrandizement
for those who feel inferior when not carrying
a gun. They think that the amendment allows them
to be armed with sophisticated weapons to nurse
their macho mentality and intrinsic insecurities
and use the weapons against fellow citizens in
a fit of road rage or to kill teachers and students
at a college campus in a debilitating attack of
low self-esteem. How absurd! How disrespectful
to the framers and the amendment that helped safeguard
regional autonomy! This is anarchy, and the framers
were not anarchists. Anarchists do not emphasize
“well regulated”.
The Second Amendment grants individuals the right
to own firearms, too. But it is hard to imagine
that its framers meant for this right to be uncontrolled,
unregulated and limitless when the words “well
regulated” convey a clear-cut message in
an otherwise rather ambiguous text. This right
was granted in the same spirit as was a state’s
right to raise a militia, i.e., self-protection.
Also, this individual right can be interpreted
as having been deduced from one’s freedom
to protect one’s life and property and the
lives and property of one’s loved ones.
But we must not get carried away while interpreting
this right. Protection against whom? An intruder,
an armed burglar? Sure! It would be good to have
a gun when you notice that someone has broken
into your house and is walking toward your children’s
rooms and you know there is no way the police
could arrive in time. But protection against law-enforcement
agents who have come to your property to serve
a judicial document upon you? Absolutely not!
The concept of “well regulated” must
apply to an individual restrictively. The amendment
is not a carte blanche to set up a weapons warehouse
in your basement.
Today, society must be protected against an overzealous
and expansive -- and thus dangerous -- interpretation
of the Second Amendment. Among the limitations
on the type and extent and purchase-mechanics
of ammunitions that a citizen could and should
be allowed, there must be a pre-purchase waiting
period which should also apply to gun shows. Without
ample background checks that must evaluate a potential
buyer’s mental health, “well regulated”
looses its teeth. Why would one need a gun in
a hurry? Why would one need a sophisticated firing
weapon for hunting or self-protection when a less
powerful weapon could do the job? Why should a
mentally disturbed individual be able to buy a
gun? One cannot rent a car if one has a bad driving
record. Why should one be able to buy a gun without
comprehensive background checks?
In this time and age, rights and freedoms would
be safeguarded best through petitions and other
peaceful overtures. Shooting at government agents
should be regarded as a high crime, which it undoubtedly
is. Moreover, gun worshippers should stop living
under the illusion that their arms caches constitute
a defense against a suppressive government. Today,
if a government wanted to usurp their rights,
it is not going to send an armed contingent to
their houses. It is going to "disarm”
them by exploiting religion, raising fears, causing
divisions, brainwashing, etc. How many unjust
laws that ignore due process and other American
values were approved and how many anti-freedom
actions taken by the current government right
under the noses of gun addicts without a “shot”
being fired, as they proudly greased their guns?
Today, the best way to challenge a manipulative
government is to arm yourself with prudence and
an untainted understanding of facts and events,
not guns.
