Regardless of your political beliefs, it is true that the Second Amendment establishes the legal details of owning a gun in the United States. Americans are constantly updating and fighting with 18th-century laws to match 21st-century lives. But in truth, neither side's stance in an ongoing gun-control debate was significantly influenced by the concerns of the Founding Fathers. However, because both sides of arguments over the Second Amendment refer to what the Founders could have believed, it's critical to consider what they actually intended.
Firstly, the Second Amendment's main objective was to stop the United States from requiring a standing army. Few groups in the 18th century were as terrifying as the standing army, which was made up of professionals who served full-time. In current times, however, it’s challenging to rekindle that same fear of just a few threatening men.
Any society with a professional army could never be entirely free, according to the thinking of the 18th century. The men in control of that army could give orders to assault citizens directly. Since these targets were unprepared and defenseless, they would be powerless to defend themselves. For the protection of a free state, a well-managed militia was essential for the following reasons: Foremost, society needed to be able to defend itself to feel safe—and, arguably, to be safe. Secondly, in order to be free, it could not depend solely on a standing army and its generals. Citizens had to be prepared to protect their citizenship, well-organized and equipped if they wanted to live in freedom and security.
Before the seminal District of Columbia v. Heller Supreme Court ruling in 2008, courts had concluded that a citizen's right to keep and bear arms only applied to participating in the militia. The Supreme Court invalidated that rule in favor of Heller, giving supporters of carrying firearms their biggest legal triumph.
However, as Justice Antonin Scalia claimed, this was not a return to the Second Amendment's "original interpretation." Not that the Founders opposed the concept of an individual right to keep and bear arms, they were simply unconcerned with it.
The authors of the Bill of Rights wanted every citizen to serve in the militia, and for that militia to be armed. The leaders of the Founders' generation would not have wanted someone to have access to firearms if they were not allowed to join the militia. African-Americans, Indigenous peoples, and women were not allowed to serve as armed members under the 18th-century laws that mandated militia participation from all citizens.
It's crucial to comprehend these constraints on militia membership. Because despite what the Second Amendment says, the 18th-century legislation did restrict Americans' ability to bear arms. Freed African-Americans were rarely permitted to own weapons by law. For those who were still enslaved, permission to use them was much more uncommon. Militias searched slave quarters in slave states and seized whatever weapons they discovered.
These limits weren't just an afterthought in the American gun politics of the eighteenth century. White Americans had weapons so they could continue to use that power to perpetrate violence over others. To ensure that white control over American society would not be threatened, people of color were denied arms under the law.
Anyone hoping to restore the Second Amendment to its original intent, where no one served as a professional soldier and everyone was forced to join the militia, would now be outside the political mainstream. The current most potent fighting force in world history is the United States military. Even though the Founders intended for all white, male citizens to participate, the National Guard still functions as a citizens' militia. Meanwhile, the ideals of the Army and the militia have evolved in ways that no one could have predicted in the 18th century.
The pattern of what Americans will and will not tolerate, however, still exists. Since the Bill of Rights was enacted, the strongest gun control measures have been intended to prevent African-Americans from arming themselves.
While this is going on, the country tolerates a degree of citizen gun violence that is unheard of in other advanced countries. Militias in the 18th century were unstable and unpredictable. American gun violence in the 21st century has been equally so, and given the advancements in armament, it has been significantly more deadly. A level of carnage that would have been impossible with the weapons available in the 18th century has occurred in many recent mass shootings in America.
Once more, the men who drafted the Constitution and the Bill of Rights could not have predicted the level of slaughter that now occurs. But as Americans, we continue to operate within the parameters set forth by those white men, including the Second Amendment, through the legislation we enact. The Second Amendment, at its best, was a pledge to encourage civic participation by citizens and a means of keeping military authority under civil control. At its worst, it was a means by which white people could continue to dominate society.
While the debate continues to rage between an individual’s rights and society’s needs, the echoes of 18th century race politics continue to stifle modern America.