All too often people take for granted the meaning of words in the title and never give thought to how those meanings can and do affect their lives. We must remember that words impart knowledge, truth, and are the only way that we can communicate thoughts in an understandable manner. If the meanings change, then understanding of the subject isn’t possible or it becomes skewed.   

For example to begin the discussion, take the word grace. It has many meanings, one of which is the prayer of thanks before a meal. Another one is the meaning found in the Bible, which is the act of God granting unmerited favor to mankind through Jesus Christ. It is important to know the context for the word being used. The context for the prayer of thanks is generally the meal, though it can be any context for which thanks to God is given. In the case of God’s grace in Christ, the meaning doesn’t change. The conclusion is that context and denotative meanings are both important to the understanding of how words are used and how they affect our lives.

That brings us to the subject of this article, the Second Amendment of the Constitution:  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. The Amendment should be understandable enough, but to the anti-gun zealots, the meaning isn’t clear or so they say, insisting that it means the national guard of each state and that only they can possess arms. Are they correct in their assertions?  The answer is no. The National Guard was originally the militia of the Second Amendment comprised of the able body men who were capable of defending the colonies. Be that as it may, it still doesn’t mean National Guard, as we know it today, since it came into being many years after the Constitution was written and ratified.

It is apparent that many don’t take the time to understand the meaning of the words used in the Constitution or the grammar employed in sentence construction. The founders wrote in a style of English that causes those, who know little of the style, to engage in silly arguments. The reason for the last part of the Amendment sentence is stated in the beginning of the sentence. It can be turned around and written in the following way and it still says the same thing: [T] the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed, [a] A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State. In order for a state to have security, the militia had a protected right to bear arms. It must be pointed out that militia and the people are synonymous in the sentence. Another fact is that the militia (people) of that day had to supply their own arms. Is that not an argument against individual arms since today there are standing armies with taxpayer supplied arms? No. That will be explained later.

Now let’s examine the meaning of militia (Webster’s 1828 Dictionary) as used when the Amendment was written: The body of soldiers in a state enrolled for discipline, but not engaged in actual service except in emergencies; as distinguished from regular troops, whose sole occupation is war or military service. In other words, the people were the militia and still are using the definition of the word used in the Constitution. The other word is people (Webster’s 1828 Dictionary): The body of persons who compose a community, town, city or nation. … the word is not used in the plural, but it comprehends all classes of inhabitants, considered as a collective body, or any portion of the inhabitants of a city or country.

In every place the word people is used in the Constitution, the meaning is the same. The Preamble begins: We the People of the United States … Therefore, since the meaning of people doesn’t change, that means that the people never lose the identity of being the militia as ascribed to them in the Second Amendment any more than the word people loses its meaning in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

Now to the question of, Is that not an argument against individual arms since today there are standing armies with taxpayer supplied arms? No, because no matter how many laws are passed or the reasons given, the Constitution can’t be changed except by amendment, and it is doubtful that an amendment to take away a God given right to self defense could ever be successful. Neither are changes in societal conditions reason for changing interpretations of the document. The actual danger is the changing of meaning by judicial fiat even though courts don’t possess that power.

If the meaning of the words used in the Constitution are denied or changed, then freedom and liberty will suffer immeasurable damage. If the courts can change the meaning of the words in one amendment, what is to prevent the change in other places? In Sorting It Out, remember that the right to bear arms stands for and means freedom and liberty for the nation’s people.

© 04-24-2008