How to Solve the Second Amendment Debate

image
Published: 24 Jun, 2015
2 min read

There has been yet another mass murder using a gun in the U.S., and now we have the inevitable reiteration of the arguments for and against ‘gun control.’ To my mind, all we need to wrap this up is to read the Second Amendment and do what it says.

Here it is:

"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." - Second Amendment, U.S. Constitution

There is no avoiding some interpretation. The amendment clearly includes a rationale for the right it expresses; where there is a rationale, differing ‘reasonable’ interpretations of it are possible. The reference to “the security of a free State” is read by some people to indicate that people should be able to take up arms against ‘the government’—any government—if ‘necessary.’

For many people, “the government” in question would be the federal government -- the idea being that militias are necessary for the individual states in the union to be able to defend themselves against it.

Another possible interpretation of that wording is that a ‘standing army’ was one of the primary ‘evils’ that the founding of this nation was intended to overcome; since there would be no standing army, having a militia would be “necessary to the security” of the Union.

To me, the third interpretation makes the most sense. Since we do have a standing army, however, a militia really is unnecessary. Since a militia is unnecessary, the rationale in the amendment goes away.

On the other hand, there is nothing particularly wrong with having a militia. So, let’s have a well regulated militia in each state. (I’m pretty sure most states already have a militia, on paper at least.) What “well regulated” means can be left up to each state as well. It would surely be different in Vermont than it would be in Texas.

It definitely could include which kinds of arms would be allowable, etc. If one wanted to “keep and bear arms,” however, a person would have to be a member in good standing of the militia of the state in which one resided.

Photo Credit: larry1235 / shutterstock.com

IVP Donate

You Might Also Like

Ballrooms, Ballots, and a Three-Way Fight for New York
Ballrooms, Ballots, and a Three-Way Fight for New York
The latest Independent Voter Podcast episode takes listeners through the messy intersections of politics, reform, and public perception. Chad and Cara open with the irony of partisan outrage over trivial issues like a White House ballroom while overlooking the deeper dysfunctions in our democracy. From California to Maine, they unpack how the very words on a ballot can tilt entire elections and how both major parties manipulate language and process to maintain power....
30 Oct, 2025
-
1 min read
California Prop 50 gets an F
Princeton Gerrymandering Project Gives California Prop 50 an 'F'
The special election for California Prop 50 wraps up November 4 and recent polling shows the odds strongly favor its passage. The measure suspends the state’s independent congressional map for a legislative gerrymander that Princeton grades as one of the worst in the nation....
30 Oct, 2025
-
3 min read
bucking party on gerrymandering
5 Politicians Bucking Their Party on Gerrymandering
Across the country, both parties are weighing whether to redraw congressional maps ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. Texas, California, Missouri, North Carolina, Utah, Indiana, Colorado, Illinois, and Virginia are all in various stages of the action. Here are five politicians who have declined to support redistricting efforts promoted by their own parties....
31 Oct, 2025
-
4 min read