Written by Spencer Aland



The second amendment states:

“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.”

There are many today that believe this amendment was drafted specifically, and only, for the purpose of having a ‘well regulated militia’. This is false. In fact the history of the 2nd amendment is very unique among the original ten. When James Madison wrote what would eventually become the Bill of Rights he proposed nine amendments to the constitution to appease the anti-federalist who were concerned about too much power being given to the federal government and not enough rights protected for the people. The second amendment was originally contained within the fourth amendment, and was written as:

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.”

This is obviously a very clear statement leaving no open interpretation as to whether the right to bear arms is tied to militia service. In the end, after many changes and debates, the section on the right to bear arms was removed from the fourth amendment and given its own place as the second. In fact, the right to bear arms was already so important to individuals that prior to the ratifying of the new Constitution all of the previous state constitutions under the Articles of Confederation had already guaranteed gun rights within their texts.


We are lucky that the current Supreme Court understands the true meaning of the 2nd amendment as they stated in the landmark case District of Columbia v. Heller:

“The Second Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.”

We can only hope that the court will rule in favor of the right to bear arms when it hears a potentially more important case next year out of Chicago.

Written by Spencer Aland


Does the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution give individuals the right to bear arms? If you answered yes to this question then you are absolutely wrong. The same is true about the 1st amendment, it does not grant individuals the right to freedom of religion, press, etc. The Bill of Rights does not grant individuals any rights, but instead it acknowledges the pre-existence of rights and then prohibits government from infringing upon them.


The constitution is unique in the world because of this characteristic. It believes that people are naturally endowed with certain rights that cannot be given to them and should not be taken away. The 2nd amendment is representative of the right to self defense. A free man can never truly be free unless he has the right to defend himself and his other rights.


There are many advocate groups who refer to the old adage, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it” in defense of many obscene and outlandish behaviors from individuals; yet I never hear any of these groups mutter something like “I believe guns kill people, but I will defend to the death your right to own them.” Why are so many groups and people so selective over which amendments they choose to support? Is it possible to defend the 1st amendment and argue against the 2nd without being hypocritical? I believe that the rights recognized within the Bill of Rights are natural and not granted to us. I also believe that natural rights do not go away in time or change because of circumstance. If the individual loses his or her natural rights then the individual within society will cease to be important. Taking away one right will inevitably lead to the taking away of many.

Written by Spencer Aland





During the 2008 Presidential election Barack Obama was speaking during a fundraiser in San Francisco when he stated the following:

“You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them…so it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion…”

I believe that what the President said was not appropriate and in bad taste, but in a sense it may have been one of the most profound statements he has ever said.


Why is it that during times of trial or uncertainty we return to those things that are most basic and simple? Recent studies have found that most individuals, regardless of circumstance, have a basic, and uniform, way of measuring happiness up to a specific point at which time personal and cultural situations and circumstances take over, projecting that person’s happiness beyond their basic needs. Essentially we all have basic needs such as family and self worth that determine the bulk of our overall happiness. Societies mimic this same kind of behavior, and when times are tough they return to those things that give them the most meaning or happiness.


President Obama made this comment within the context of people having lost jobs for decades, and having little hope for any rectification of their unfortunate circumstance. As ignorant as the statement may have been in the moment, what does it tell us about religion and guns? These are things that define our society and give us true meaning, and it is no mistake that these two things find themselves as numbers 1 and 2 on the Bill of Rights.


Guns themselves do not define our society, but it is what owning a gun represents that most certainly does. The first amendment lays out basic rights to which all people are entitled, and this most important amendment is immediately followed by the right to bear arms which guarantees individuals a way to protect those rights should the government fail to do so. The right to bear arms represents more than gun ownership; it represents the importance of the individual within society and the right of any individual to protect his rights. The 2^nd amendment empowers the individual within a society that too often overlooks them.


Personal liberties are directly related to how much power individuals have within a society. If government takes away power from the individual their rights will shortly follow. It is no wonder that during such trying times in America people ‘cling’ to what is most basic – their rights.

Written by: Spencer Aland

It would appear that the Supreme Court may be the 2nd Amendments best ally on Capitol Hill. Last year the Supreme Court ruled that the Washington D.C. ban on guns was indeed unconstitutional. The basis for the ruling was that the right to bear arms was not only for militia use but also served as a check upon the state itself by the people. Unfortunately, the ruling did not extend to all states and municipalities because of the complex structure of law unique only to D.C. However, the court is now prepping to hear a similar case from Chicago and is likely to rule in the same fashion as the D.C. case which will finally extend the ruling to include all laws governing the use of guns in America.
It is a breath of fresh air to finally hear from someone in power that the people themselves actually need to check the government. The system of checks and balances in America must include the people or it wouldn’t be complete. The writers of the Bill of Rights understood that voting alone was not a sufficient check and so they gave us the 2nd Amendment. Those of us that have understood this governing principle in the constitution should feel relieved that we finally have a friend in D.C.

Written by: Spencer Aland

The government should always live in fear of the people it governs. This statement is one of the most important principles necessary for a government to be truly democratic. We too often forget that the founding fathers were in fact members of government, but they understood that a government by the people and for the people cannot be against the people. The average citizen during the beginnings of America was not educated and many could not read, but the government respected them and feared them. Today the average citizen not only can read, but they are well educated and yet the level of respect by the government for its people has never been lower.

The 2^nd Amendment to the constitution was 2^nd for a reason. A citizenry armed is a force to be reckoned with. This was advantageous for government because its citizens were able to help defend the country at a moment’s notice, and mostly it was advantageous to the people because they could defend themselves against the government itself if needed. This Amendment was so important because it established an ultimatum for government: either the people will fight with you or against you. It forced the government to be more accountable to those who elected them and it also kept them from committing civil abuses.

Not only is the right to bear arms essential for personal security and criminal deterrence, but it is essential for a government to not outgrow its bounds. A government that disarms its citizens does not respect them and does not fear them, and that is the making for disaster.