Why Are We Arguing Over The Second Amendment?

Jack R. Noel
5 min readDec 9, 2023

Jack R. Noel
December 8, 2023

Okay, one more time: 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.

Most states have a version like Michigan’s Section 6: “Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state.”

Elaboration:
The difference between the two is that, at the time, the chief concern was the lack of an organized armed force — for the brand-new United States. Congress had done what it’s still doing: Ignored or put off what it was supposed to be doing. Congress also required some source of funding for everything including the military. They had to create federal tax laws to pay for legitimate services. So using “militia” is why Washington’s Continental Army was composed of militias and a few individual volunteers. This is the most often misunderstood thing about our Second Amendment, which I remind you, is integral to our Bill of Rights.

Remember too the little detail; there was no United States Army or Navy, Marine Corps or Air Force. We pay taxes to sustain our military. But everything had to be created from scratch and ultimately at the village level. I hope this explains “a well-regulated militia being necessary,,,” part.

In other words, without adequately armed civilians, we would not have a free nation today.

This is why, as they were created, state legislatures included sections worded like Michigan’s. –“Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state.”– Notice the shift to the right to self-defense and from national defense to defending one’s state. It’s all about defense, not shooting up schools, churches, synagogues and mosques.

And so it is that the outlier State of Massachusetts just had a legal setback over its mistaken belief about, of all things, where people can go armed. According to Massachusetts’ “gun control law” — you have the right to keep and bear arms only in your own home. Like when you carry your AR-15 from your bedroom to your kitchen. The absurdity of this should not have needed to be explained.

A court has decided against this Massachusetts law and like almost everywhere else residents of Massachusetts can now “bear arms” in both public and private places.

--

--

Jack R. Noel

Writer (non fiction/fiction), science buff, history buff and political commentator at large.