Militia Clause

"The army is a broadsword, not a scalpel. Trust me, senator, you do not want the Army in an American city."
--General William Devereaux (The Siege) 

Ryan McMaken researches the rationale behind the Second Amendment with a focus on the 'Militia Clause' portion of the Amendment. The Amendment 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.

Review of the debates surrounding the establishment of the Second Amendment finds that our founding ancestors had a more sophisticated view of gun ownership than is often assumed. In particular, they understood that a large federal military that stood in peacetime would threaten liberty over time. "When once a standing army is created in any country," said George Mason, "the people lose their liberty."

To counter the threat posed by a standing federal army, the founders envisioned militias in each state. These militias were not of the organized variety similar to today's National Guard. Instead, they were 'unorganized' militias composed of people who could capably bear arms and organize if need be to defend their states against intrusion by federal forces.

Importantly, the Second Amendment, similar to the First Amendment, was not written for the states. Rather, it was written as a restriction on the federal government. The states were still free to regulate weaponry in their own constitutions and legislatures. Most state legislatures elected to include provisions protecting private gun ownership--both as an element of the state's overall militia strategy and for personal protection.

Interestingly enough, those present at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia toyed with the idea of 'select militia' of specially trained citizens not unlike today's National Guard. However, they rejected it out of concerns that a select militia would pose similar threats to a national army.

McMaken ends by noting that, ironically, many 'defenders' of the Second Amendment today also enthusiastically support a strong federal military establishment--something that many of our founding ancestors would have found incomprehensible.