There is a difference between using force —

perhaps with a gun — for your own self-defense, and using force to

back up the exercise of your political rights as defined in the

Constitution. Most legal codes recognize the former; self-defense

is a common defense to the various crimes associated with killing

people. 

What is not acceptable, however, is using your

apparent — and frankly unclear — right to own a gun in association

with your rights to free speech, religion, etc. We should probably

examine the text of this most-controversial amendment before we

pursue the subject further. It reads: “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.” 

First, “A well regulated Militia, being

necessary for the security of a free State.” It was

common in history for towns, counties, states and even whole

countries to have bodies of soldiers to call upon in times of

need.  The members met periodically to drill and, when

unneeded, this was the extent of their activity.<span style=

“mso-spacerun: yes;”> They existed for the defense of the

polity, of whatever size, from outside threat.<span style=

“mso-spacerun: yes;”> 

This physical security existed as the

prerequisite to political life in a community, not as a part of

that community existence. We live together in

political systems where the power to use force lies with the

government — made up, in a republic, of the citizens — so

individuals don’t have to worry so much about their own mean

existence. 

That militia is a body that is put to the

service of the state when it is needed; the fact that a militia is

an unprofessional, citizen army does not mean that individual

members of a militia can take matters into their own hands when

they determine that freedom and liberties are in danger.

 

Second is “the right of the people to keep and

bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” This part of the

amendment uses the term “people,” seeming to indicate that any

rights granted from it do not belong to individuals because they

are individuals, but to individuals because they are members of the

political community — that it is, in short, a collective

right. 

“The people” is a term used in a few other

amendments. It is used in

the First, in guaranteeing “the right of the people peaceably to

assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of

grievances.” It is next used in the Second, which we have

discussed. 

All other liberties confirmed in the Bill of

Rights speak of individuals. In the Fourth Amendment,

“the people” is used in an individual sense — “the right of the

people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,

against unreasonable searches and seizures.” 

The Third Amendment speaks of the owners of

houses, the Fifth speaks of “persons” who “shall [not] be held to

answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a

presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury.” It then speaks of not

putting a “person … in jeopardy of life or limb” twice, and next

of not compelling witnesses to testify against themselves. The

Sixth speaks only of an “accused.” 

And then it ends. There is a

clear distinction, in the Bill of Rights, of rights held by groups

and rights held by individuals. The rights affirmed by the Second

Amendment, since they can be exercised by individuals only if they

are members of a group — a militia is a group of people, not one

person — are not individual rights.<span style=

“mso-spacerun: yes;”> 

The right “to keep and bear Arms” is the right

to participate in the defense of the polity from outside

harm. In a certain sense,

it prohibits our government from hiring mercenaries and instead

compels the use of ordinary citizens — the people who have an

interest in the country’s existence — the people whose patriotism

motivates them, not their pocketbooks. 

The Second Amendment does not allow you to

take matters into your own hands if you think wrong policy is in

effect in America. That is

what the First Amendment is for.