The debate on the meaning of the 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution is renewed at every opportunity by those that would disarm the People of the Republic.

The argument often centers around “need” – They instantly discard the fact that the Bill of Rights is not a Bill of Needs, or a Bill of what the government allows. Alas, this is a non sequitur as rights are not about need. The Bill of Rights is, in fact, a list of God-given, unalienable rights that are acknowledged as sacrosanct.

Some of those that have no grasp of historical context, language, or the construct of the Bill of Rights then turn to the phrases of the 2nd Amendment itself. They ignore that the reference to the “right of the People” refers to the citizens of the Republic. They refuse to acknowledge that the phrase “shall not be infringed” exists. Finally, they latch onto what many consider to be a vagary at best, and a restriction at worst. That phrase is: “a well-regulated militia.”

Here is where that argument falls apart completely and finally. The phrase “well-regulated” must, like all of the Constitution, must be taken in the context of the times (yes, even the meaning of the word arms). “Well-regulated” meant at the time, and for years before and after, something that worked well. Not something that was regulated by the government.

At the time of the ratification of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, a well-regulated military was one that was well equipped and organized. It was not one that was professional or full time. Words like “Regulars” or “Standing Army” were used to refer to a professional force. Hence, a “well-regulated militia” was one that was properly equipped and drilled. It was not an admonition to have strict government control. Remember, that private citizens could and did own fully kitted warships, attacked foreign enemy vessels as authorized by letters of marque, and equipped entire regiments of militia out of their own pockets. A “well-regulated militia,” acknowledges and guarantees the right of the People to maintain a military force separate and independent of the Regular Army – not that their arms were to be the subject of laws restricting them only to military use.

From the Oxford English Dictionary (for those of you that do not know, the beauty of the OED is that it traces the history of a word’s usage, and dates when those usages changed):

1709: “If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations.”

1714: “The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world.”

1812: “The equation of time … is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial.”

1848: “A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor.”

1862: “It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding.”

1894: “The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city.”

Another argument against the inclusion of modern arms under the protections of the 2nd Amendment is that the armament technology of the times and the minds of otherwise brilliant men, were far more simple than today. They argue that no one had any idea that the firearms of the 21st Century would have the destructive capability or rate of fire that they do. From the start, this is also a non-sequitur. There were repeating and automatic weapons in development, and explosive warheads were already in use. Nonetheless, the persistent among those that fear and loathe an armed Citizenry insist that the “arms” referred to in the 2nd Amendment refer only to muskets of the standing army.

The fact is that the framers of the Constitution and Bill of Rights well understood and were clear in what they wrote. “Arms” refers to weapons of all types, collectively. That was so in 1792, and it is so today. “Arms” did not mean only muskets – it included muskets, rifles, canons, pistols, swords, pikes, bombs, mortars, knives, daggers, mines, maces, and every other implement of war known at the time. It was not a limiting word, but a broad, all-encompassing word meant to include current, in-development, and future weapons of all sorts.

Therefore, there is no historical limit on the size, rate of fire, or destructive capability of modern firearms, just as there is no limit to the type, scale, or mode of transmission of free speech or the press. It only follows logic that if modern firearms are excluded based on the idea that the technology was not present at the time of the ratification of the Bill of Rights, then it must also mean that only quill pens and movable type presses should be protected forms of speech and press – not telephones, computers, or skywriting.

If you want to ban guns – it really is simple. Amend the Constitution via Congress and ratification of the many States, or an Article V Convention of States. Any other route or form of legislation is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. So, elect those that would abolish the 2nd, do the work as the Constitution intended – and may God have mercy on your souls.

Historical context:

Niccolò Machiavelli: “The main foundations of every state, new states as well as ancient or composite ones, are good laws and good arms. You cannot have good laws without good arms, and where there are good arms, good laws inevitably follow.”

Tenche Coxe: “Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man [a]gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American… [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”

Patrick Henry: “Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in our possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress?”; “If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?” ; “The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.;”

Elbridge Gerry: “Whenever governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.”

Thomas Jefferson: “And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms… The tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.;” “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”

George Mason: “I ask you sir, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people.”

Richard Henry Lee: “To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them…”

Thomas Paine: “The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property.” ; “Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them…”

Justice Joseph Story: “The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers.” ; “It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people.” ; “The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic…”

Adolf Hitler: “The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so.”