(C) Daily Kos
This story was originally published by Daily Kos and is unaltered.
. . . . . . . . . .



The 2nd Amendment is Pro-Gun Regulation [1]

['This Content Is Not Subject To Review Daily Kos Staff Prior To Publication.']

Date: 2025-07-30

MYTH: The 2nd Amendment gives individuals the right to own firearms.

FACT: The Supreme Court ruled that the 2nd Amendment gives individuals the right to own firearms.

This is a problem.

Gun culture in America is not a monolith. Most Americans have no problem with people owning hunting rifles and shotguns to put food on the table. Fewer Americans but still a sizable amount are OK with people owning handguns for personal protection. Even fewer are OK with assault rifles and high capacity magazines. Even fewer think they should be concealed, silenced, and/or automatic.

Find a gun-toting “true American” and ask them what the 2nd Amendment says and they’ll reply, “The right to bear arms.” And I wouldn’t be surprised if this is the only part of the Constitution they can quote (inaccurately). Many of these tough guys hold that this right is so fundamental that they be given unfettered access to every manner of weapon because the Constitution is sacred and absolute. This same person would probably think that none of the other rights enshrined in the Constitution are as sacred and absolute. But how did we get to the point in the US where the “the right to bear Arms” as mentioned in the 2nd Amendment meant the right to carry around military-style mass death machines?

The answer is that the gun lobby created a bold, disgusting interpretation of the 2nd Amendment and proliferated it throughout society--especially the conservative legal community. It’s time for a bold re-interpretation. Let’s call it "originalism."

My argument today is that the 2nd Amendment needs to be interpreted in a much more rational fashion and probably closer to as it was written 1791. There were cannons in 1791 for crying out loud and no one takes the argument that the framers meant for individuals to own cannons back then seriously. Nor should we take seriously that individuals today have the right to own the current iteration of deadly howitzers. Since there are limits on this “right to bear arms” we need to talk about WHY the 2nd Amendment guides those limits. Not only that, the American legal community should boldly propose this interpretation and teach it in law schools and make these arguments in court. Politicians should appoint like-minded attorneys to judgeships holding this interpretation and reverse the perverse world the gun-nuts have created. Stare decisis be damned. Too many legal institutions might teach how the 2nd Amendment has been interpreted, but they need to teach how it should be interpreted.

Here is the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment we should go with: The 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution is ARGUMENTATIVE. It begs that the ownership and possession of weapons be well-regulated and conditional. If you want to own “Arms,” you must be a member of a well regulated militia. Such regulations can:

Define what “Militia” means to ensure professionalism, competence, and accountability

Compel national service in a Militia as a condition of ownership

Limit the types of weaponry a person can own and carry

Mandate licensure and registration of weaponry

The list goes on.

Let’s start with a plain reading of the text:

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.

That’s it. 27 words. 3 commas, 1 period, and it’s not even a coherent, complete sentence. I forgive the writers who didn’t have chatGPT to write it for them. But clearly the most important part is the first clause:

A WELL REGULATED MILITIA

The first concept that the 2nd Amendment mentions is the idea of regulation. Boom goes the dynamite. Congress is explicitly directed to regulate the militias in the US. This means that gun owners should be members of a formal militia. They should be trained, uniformed, and ready to be called upon. And guns themselves should be properly manufactured in accordance with regulations.

BEING NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE

This clause gives justification for the well regulated militia. It’s necessary for a country to have this as a part of its inherent powers. Notice as well the implication of having unregulated militias or no militias as all--no free State. There is no mention at this point of any individual needing to possess arms. Nay, only organized and regulated groups of gun owners are vital for protecting our freedom through organized militias. No lone wolf gun nuts are going to be securing the freedom of the American people!

Also note that the word “State” in the 2nd Amendment is capitalized. So this clause indicates that the body-politic of the US as a country is a paramount consideration for gun ownership. It does NOT in any way speak of the horrible justification of owning guns as a means to defend oneself against the government. Too many gun-nuts love the idea of owning a gun just in case they have to kill hoards of jack-booted government thugs. And by the way, isn’t that argument a justification of killing our brave service members in uniform? Hmmm.

THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS

Once again, there is no mention of any individual right. The people get to keep and bear arms in the form of their membership in the well regulated militia. This means that the only “right to keep and bear arms” is when people are actually in the militia. If you’re not in the militia, you can be prohibited from keeping and bearing arms. This makes sense that the militia be drawn from the people in a country as opposed to hiring a foreign mercenary force to come to the defense of the US. It also ties with the 3rd Amendment which prohibits quartering troops in private homes. There would be no need to have those troops when the members of those homes ARE the militia coming to our defense. Even Washington warned against standing armies which he argued was an affront to our freedoms. You don’t need a standing army when the well regulated militia can be called up from the general population.

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

This phrase is vague. If the framers meant for the right to bear arms as absolute, they might have borrowed the language of the 1st Amendment when that state, “Congress shall make no law…” They didn’t. What exactly shall not be infringed? The grammar and syntax of the 2nd Amendment does not easily give us the answer to this question. Let’s look at two possibilities:

A well regulated militia…shall not be infringed.

This means that Congress shall not prohibit the regulation of militias. Which means that Congress is duty bound to establish the rules and regulations how the states (and federal government for that matter) establish and manage their militias.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

We’ve already established that this clause NEVER mentions individuals--only “the people.” If they meant individuals they would have used the language of the 4th Amendment where it mentions “persons” when referring to individual rights rather than “the people” when mentioning collective rights. THERE IS SIMPLY NO INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS.

Should there be? Probably not. I would argue that the privilege of owning a rifle, shotgun, or handgun be fairly straight-forward in terms of being trained and licensed. Hunter education. Firearm safety training. Gun registration and insurance. Etc.

But what would be the implication of this interpretation should it win out? What would happen to the gun nuts who already own 14 different colors of the latest AR-15? My argument is, they should join the national guard, the army reserves, and the volunteer sheriff department! Their guns & ammunition should be stored at secure garrisons where they would have access to them when they need to train, practice, and get information about the latest militia-like stuff going on. I’d be OK with people keeping their guns stored at home provided they are locked, secured, registered, and insured and the owner holds good standing with whatever militia they are a part of.

The main thesis here is that for too long there hasn’t been a counter argument to the tremendous amount of poor argumentation in the public realm about the 2nd Amendment. The “right to bear arms” is a MYTH. And that myth needs to be attacked, defeated, and replaced with a much better interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. Guns aren’t going away anytime soon. But perhaps gun owners can become part of a civically-oriented, well regulated militia rather than a conglomeration of lone wolves.

I’m not a lawyer. I realize that the process of creating a chain of precedent all the way up to the Supreme Court would take time. But isn’t it time to start?

[END]
---
[1] Url: https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2025/7/30/2335920/-The-2nd-Amendment-is-Pro-Gun-Regulation?pm_campaign=front_page&pm_source=more_community&pm_medium=web

Published and (C) by Daily Kos
Content appears here under this condition or license: Site content may be used for any purpose without permission unless otherwise specified.

via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds:
gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/dailykos/

You are viewing proxied material from magical.fish. The copyright of proxied material belongs to its original authors. Any comments or complaints in relation to proxied material should be directed to the original authors of the content concerned. Please see the disclaimer for more details.