You’re close to the mark here, by seeing that the problem with the interpretation of the second amendment lies with the people reading it. However, the confusion frequently stems from an uncommon usage of the term “well-regulated.”
If you’ve read the Federalist Papers, you may have read where Alexander Hamilton, used the phrase “well-regulated militia” to describe the state of training and preparedness of the pool of able-bodied citizens available to fight, should the need arise. It had nothing to do with the usage of ‘regulation’ that we are now used to. Other contemporaries of Hamilton, including George Washington, have also used this sense of the word ‘regulated’ in other writings.
Additionally, the bit about “the security of a free state” refers to the ability of the people to keep that state free. Again, we must reference the background of the people writing the Bill of Rights in order to get a good understanding of what they mean.
This document was written by a group of people who had just undertaken an armed revolution against an oppressive government. Their success was entirely dependent on the fact that they had guns. They were rightfully concerned about what would happen if the new government started acting like the one they had just freed themselves from, which is obvious if you look at the rest of the amendments – the entire Bill of Rights is composed of limits on governmental power.
So, to rewrite the amendment to be more comprehensible to a modern public, and in keeping with the other 9, it would sound like this:
“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, because an armed and trained people’s militia is necessary to ensure that the people stay free.”
You’re close to the mark here, by seeing that the problem with the interpretation of the second amendment lies with the people reading it. However, the confusion frequently stems from an uncommon usage of the term “well-regulated.”
If you’ve read the Federalist Papers, you may have read where Alexander Hamilton, used the phrase “well-regulated militia” to describe the state of training and preparedness of the pool of able-bodied citizens available to fight, should the need arise. It had nothing to do with the usage of ‘regulation’ that we are now used to. Other contemporaries of Hamilton, including George Washington, have also used this sense of the word ‘regulated’ in other writings.
Additionally, the bit about “the security of a free state” refers to the ability of the people to keep that state free. Again, we must reference the background of the people writing the Bill of Rights in order to get a good understanding of what they mean.
This document was written by a group of people who had just undertaken an armed revolution against an oppressive government. Their success was entirely dependent on the fact that they had guns. They were rightfully concerned about what would happen if the new government started acting like the one they had just freed themselves from, which is obvious if you look at the rest of the amendments – the entire Bill of Rights is composed of limits on governmental power.
So, to rewrite the amendment to be more comprehensible to a modern public, and in keeping with the other 9, it would sound like this:
“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, because an armed and trained people’s militia is necessary to ensure that the people stay free.”