2nd Amendment

The right to bear arms, our second amendment to the Bill of Rights, must first be understood in its own context before it can be explained or argued. As it is written now it states; “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.” Alone as it stand leaves a lot to interpret. To better get an idea as to what was meant you must look back to the drafts leading to this final version. I found from Wikapedia the original idea pinned by George Madison stating; “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country, but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.” Two revisions later it then read; “A well regulated militia composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall render military service in person.” From this clearer picture can be made meaning as far as the intent to the final words that were used.
With the whole picture in front of you, one can get a sense of the definition our founding fathers wished to portray in the second amendment. Taking the original concept into thought as you read the actual we have now, you easily ascertain what was meant is for a free government for and by the people should have every right to be defended by its people. Furthermore the concept of militia in those days consisted of regular citizens like you and me willing to lay down their life for that freedom much like the example portrayed by the Minute Men. As far as the word arms is concerned, the Webster dictionary defines it as; to equip ones self with weapons. Now weapons, is defined as; instrument for fighting. Logically we are left with very broad terminology in this case. Seems to me we are taking into account just about anything from a stick to what we have now, a nuclear device! Essentially, our founding fathers made it our personal duty to take it upon ourselves, to use what ever means necessary, to defend the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If as a citizen of this country, we feel that these freedoms are being oppressed, we have the right and obligation to bear arms against such oppression just as they had done in their days against England. Of course one would be trusted to maintain a level head in any given instance and use such power according to how the situation will dictate.
More of this ideology and mindset of our founding fathers can be seen too in the Declaration of Independence. In it we find an ideal very similar to that of the second amendment. I recall it being said best in a line that Nicholas Cage used as Benjamin Gates in the movie National Treasure. He stated; “If there’s something wrong those that have the ability to take action have the responsibility to take action.” What this shows us, is the beauty of these historic documents in the foresight of giving the common citizen the ability to protect their own liberties well into the future. In the end we will only have ourselves to blame for not standing up for our own civil liberty if we find our freedom stripped away. Not only though for us, but for them as well. Another great bit from the same character, shortly following the last, describing how, if our founding fathers lost, they would be tried in England for treason and more than likely beheaded! They fought tooth and nail quite literally for what we have today and out of that respect we must give time to fully understand what was meant before we use it for our own agendas.
For my personal stance on this subject I would like to say that I agree with neither side. After the research and understanding that came from it, I feel that both are changing what was meant to be to better suit their personal preference. Most gun loving citizens will only state a short excerpt from the original in which they simply say “We have the right to bear arms!” which is grossly misused because they are demonstrating the right to “keep” arms. Others who are against it mostly just don’t like what has become of guns and their use still some may take the whole of the amendment stating that “You are not a militia, so your right is invalid.” Both of these statements are logically wrong. It is evident that our army was formally formed after the Bill of Rights was pinned. This means that George Washington and those that fought beside him were never official military, but rather common citizens that felt the burden of liberty and had the intestinal fortitude to capture it. Hence a militia is a group of ordinary citizens. So too, our right to bear arms isn’t as simple. The statement, in itself out of context, is simple, but placing it where it belongs and knowing the drafts before it we know it’s not a right, but a responsibility not to take so light hearted. Sure they wave their guns around, stating the excerpt, but do they really know the burden? Do they have the same gut to put up with long winter days to simply be free and have that right? I believe every person whom states that simple excerpt should study up on a little thing called the revolutionary war. Then fathom what it would be like in the shoes of a common farmer willing to risk life and limb, in the harshest of days, to face a superior enemy so that today they can stand there with gun in hand. If one can not do this, then they have not the right to bear arms.
In essence, the second amendment becomes a personal decision we all must make based on true knowledge of intent. When one takes the time to put what was written by our founding fathers in the context of their time and places it in the events that where happening, you realize meaning by walking in their shoes. In the end we know we have the right to keep and bear arms as an ordinary citizen in a free country. We also know that the right time to use these arms against another is in defense of our liberties. In no way, shape, or form does it give anyone permission to use those arms to purposely harm or infringe liberties of another citizen, at times though some choose to use them in this manner. Because of this, those wishing to keep their liberties should also have the frame of mind to realize the necessity of restriction. Our leaders have a greater obligation to the common good to do what they can in trying to keep such deeds accounted for without infringing on our right, a tough job not to be taken lightly. I feel that our founding fathers could not fathom what type of weapons the human mind was capable of achieving. So thusly I agree and defend the right of regulation and licensing being used wisely and carefully. Through our voting process we elect the ones that will make the decisions in these matters and through those that abuse these rights, cause the restrictions necessary to maintain our liberties as a whole. Keeping arms is the easy part, bearing them gives birth to a nation.