Is the US Constitution's 2nd Amendment intentionally vague? If so, why?

Question

"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."

My understanding is that there are two interpretations: One is an "individual right" and the other is a "collective right."

If the right is individual, why does the article mention militias at all? If the right is collective, why doesn't it just read, "The right of a well-regulated militia to own and bear arms..."

Was Madison (I understand he wrote it?) intentionally being vague?

I think many of you are over-looking that the Constitution's Article 1 explicitly states that militias are institutions created by Congress. That would be the National Guard.

Answer 1

It was probably initially just for the militia, but then someone who proof read it happened to have a gun on them.

Answer 2

You have to look at the whole document (the original 10) to have better understanding of the second amendment. These rights apply to individuals and the document is a guarantee that government does not have the power to take them away. The important thing is that they are individual rights not group rights. As for the wording, you have to understand what way meant in that time period. A militia today if far different that what was meaning then. There was no standing army in those days and there was no intent to have a professional army either. A militia was considered to be EVERY able bodied male between 16 years of age and 46 years of age. If you adjusted for today's prospective it would read EVERY able bodied person between 16 and say 55 years of age. We are the militia that Madison wrote about. Being within that range, I would be expected to take up arms against an enemy and would be expected to have my own weapon and ammuntion. Remember there was no standing army and no standardization of weapons. As the founders didn't know about computers, telephones, et el. they didn't know about our professional military so I insist that the 2nd is an individual right separate from the group. One caveat, a town could and did hire professionals to keep the peace but that did not remove the right and responsibilities of the townsfolk.

Answer 3

"I think many of you are over-looking that the Constitution's Article 1 explicitly states that militias are institutions created by Congress. That would be the National Guard."

The line you are refering to does NOT state that. The militia clause of Article 1, Section 8 states, "To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;".

Nothing about the militia being 'created' by Congress.

The National Guard is not the Constitutional Militia, in fact the National Guard was formed under the Constitutional power to raise and support a standing army and is thus part of the standing army.

Answer 4

It is perhaps considered vague, with so much legal wrangling done about it, but given the time, I would say that the definition would cover both.

Militia would be a civilian army, basically, and the individuals of that militia would be responsible for providing their own firearms. The right of the people shall not be infringed so that when they are called up as militia, they would have the arms to fight.

Answer 5

The second amendment is not at all vague, it is written to guarantee the right of the individual and the collective civilian population outside of government control.

The constitution mentions the right of the people in other amendments, each time as a guarantee to the collective civilian population( and thus, the individuals that makes up that population) against abuses of government authority
.
The first amendment guarantee of the right of the people to peacefully assemble and petition the government is clearly meant for the collective population.

The fourth amendment right of the people to be secure in their person, places and papers of unreasonable search and siezure, also clearly meant to protect the civilian population from government abuse
.
The ninth amendment clearly states that anything not covered by the bill of rights was retained "by the people", as opposed to the government.

The tenth amendment clearly distinguishes the seperation of the "state" and the "people".


Only the fifth amendment clearly mentions the right of the person, intended to mean the individual.However, since "the people" is the collective plural of the individual, and the constitution clearly distinguishes between the militia as a seperate entity from the people, the second amendment guarantees both the peoples right to maintain a militia seperate from the federal government and the individual right to own weapons.


But that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

Answer 6

For a detailed and insightful answer, see the entry in Wikipedia. This includes many links to other resources, and a discussion of how the wording came about, after several drafts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

I think the most important (and most overlooked) words are "well-regulated". With the right to bear arms goes the government's right to regulate the militia, whether that is a body or individuals.

Answer 7

Because the people compose the militia. You must have armed individuals to create a militia.

It's not a far fetched idea for a bunch of guys who just overthrew a government to enter in a new clause in their government to allow the overthrowing of another government.

What socialists want to downplay is the role that citizen militias played in the founding of this country.

He wasn't being vague, he was writing within the context of the American Revolution.

Answer 8

by researching our constitutional rights it seems to me the founding fathers were always very concerned about how our federal gov, would act in the future , so they wanted the people to always be in control, as (the gov, should always fear the people) so with out guns the gov, could and would eventually suppress the people and take away their freedom that our forefathers had intended, now we see how our federal gov, has infringed on our rights, now, they have complete control over every aspect of our lives, every one fears the feds, but, the feds sure as hell don't fear the people, as intended, and it stems from our people being so lazy and indifferent, the gov is constantly chiseling away at our rights and freedom, when will or will the people ever stand up and say enough is enough ?? the 2nd amendment was and is intended for the people to always be armed and able to defend themselves from the federal gov,there is nothing in the 2nd amendment that is mysterious or vague, it simple says The right of the people to keep and bear arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED) infring means simple to violate, what is complicated about that??

Answer 9

Individual right because many citizens were minutemen in the militia and kept their firearms in their homes or used them to hunt for food. Keeping and bearing arms was necessary for many people, both militiamen and citizens, in 1776.

Answer 10

No is not vague, the intention was to arm the "well-regulated militias" not everyone.

The colonial militias were not created by the goverment, the national guard was created by the "Milita Act of 1903" so by that time the Colonial Time Militias were gone.

What was a millitia in those days?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_%28United_States%29#Colonial_era.2C_pre-1774
They were mainly civilians and not professional soldiers from like the British soldiers.

One of their main problems was that they didn't have enough or adecuate guns for them.

(John Adams to his wife, dated August 26th, 1777:

"The militia are turning out with great alacrity both in Maryland and Pennsylvania. They are distressed for want of arms. Many have none,...)

Many prefer to ignore the historical facts that surronded the 2nd Amendment. The intention was to keep the militias armed to protect the States, not to create a "gun culture" where any psycho can claim to have the constitutional right to own as many guns as he see fit.

Answer 11

It's not vague. The language is clear and tells of two situations....An armed militia is proper and an individual carrying a fire arm is legal. I see no intended vagary.