Confusion: The wording of the Second Amendment

One of the primary arguments of gun advocates in that the Second Amendment guarantees the right for citizens to own and carry guns.  Their argument has been repeated so many times that many progressives or moderates parrot the same line.  Then they offer arguments as to why there should be limitations on gun ownership, such as bans on assault weapons.

There are two problems with the Second Amendment.  First, under any circumstance, it is confusing; something that an English teacher would mark up in red ink and tell the author to redo and clarify.  Secondly, there are actually two versions of the Amendment; The first passed by two-thirds of the members of each house of Congress (the first step for ratifying a constitutional amendment).  A different version passed by three-fourths of the states (the second step for ratifying a constitution amendment).  The primary difference between the two versions are a capitalization and a simple comma.

The version passed by Congress is:

  • 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 version ratified by the states and authenticated by Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson 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.

It’s difficult to determine the difference between having a capital M and a lower-case m in the word militia.  Generally, a capital letter means a proper noun.  In that case, the upper case M, as in the Congressional version, references a particular militia, that being the armed forces of the United States.  The lower-case m in the second version would refer to a group of individuals who form an ad hoc army, most likely to oppose the armed forces of the United States.  Therefore, it would be okay to keep and bear arms only as part of the official armed forces of the United States.  This argument supports a limited version of the right to bear arms; only when serving in the official armed forces of the United States.

The comma in the first version (between the words Arms and shall) also changes the meaning of the amendment.  The first version with the comma maintains the reference to the official armed forces of the United States.  That is further evidence that the right to bear arms is limited to serving in the official military of the United States.  The lack of a comma (between arms and shall) in the second version, implies that there is equality or parity between bearing arms for the official forces of the United States and for personal use of firearms.  This supports the N.R.A. position on the Second Amendment. as does the lower case m.

The provision for passing an amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires ratification of the same language by two-thirds of the members of each house of Congress, and the legislatures of three-fourths of the states, as described in Article V of the Constitution. It states:

[shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress;]

But in the case of the Second Amendment, the language between the Congressional and state versions have different meanings.

What this does is to throw out either meaning of the Second Amendment. It puts the definition of the right to bear arms in the same category as other items not mentioned in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, such as the right to privacy, the right to reproductive freedom, the right to gay marriage.

Bearing arms is then a legislative issue.  It may be that the policy desired by Congress, the states of the U.S., and most importantly the people, is to permit individuals to own assault weapons.  It also may be to prohibit them.  In any case, the decision should be made on wise policy, without constitutional reference to the Second Amendment.  The Second Amendment should be null and void, because its ratification did not follow the prescribed method for passing an amendment.  This makes it blatantly confusing.

As Fareed Zakaria pointed out in Time, “Congress passed the first set of federal laws regulating, licensing and taxing guns in 1934. The act was challenged and went to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1939. Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s solicitor general, Robert H. Jackson, said the Second Amendment grants people a right that ‘is not one which may be utilized for private purposes but only one which exists where the arms are borne in the militia or some other military organization provided for by law and intended for the protection of the state.’ The court agreed unanimously.”

Let’s continue (or start) the debate and discussion on gun ownership based on sound policy, rather than on the lame and unconstitutional elements of the Second Amendment.

Images by Carol Ruzicka

Arthur Lieber Arthur Lieber (388 Posts)

Since 1969, Arthur Lieber has been teaching and working in non-profit educational organizations. His focus has been on promoting critical, creative, and enjoyable learning for students in informal settings. In the 2010 mid-term elections, he was the Democratic nominee for US Congress from Missouri’s 2nd Congressional District.


  • Why would a right (granted by your creator) be written IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS if it was meant for “the army”???????? Back then there WAS NO STANDING ARMY… The “militia” or “Militia” or “MILITIA” or “mILITIA”, was and still is “we the people”. Here are some quotes.

    “I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the
    people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”
    George Mason

    Co-author of the Second Amendment
    during Virginia’s Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

    “A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …”
    Richard Henry Lee

    writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic, Letter XVIII, May, 1788.

    “A free people ought … to be armed …” –George Washington

  • Pingback: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - Page 8 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum()

  • Pingback: It Was Done on Tobacco. It Can Be Done on Guns. - Page 11 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum()

  • Pingback: CONFUSION: The Wording of the Second Amendment - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum()

  • Pingback: The Right To Bear Arms - Page 98 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum()

  • Al Eng

    “lame and unconstitutional elements of the Second Amendment.” How unAmerican is this statement? You can be opposed to guns but your ideology is opposite American belief and Constitutional rights. If you don’t like the 2nd amendment Overturn it. If that’s not good enough move somewhere and create your own world and Constitution.

  • Pingback: garnicia cambogia()

  • Pingback: cloud web service()

  • Pingback: affiliate marketing()

  • anabelle kyrie

    “Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Congress have no power over or to disarm the militia. Their swords and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American . . . . The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” —
    Tench Coxe The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788

  • Arthur Lieber

    I appreciate your comments. I just think that public safety is much more important than the right of anyone to own a gun. Industrialized countries with fewer guns are safer.

  • anabelle kyrie

    That, Sir is what makes this country so very great. Your RIGHT to disagree and voice that disagreement. I have no problem with your beliefs. It just brings great sorrow to me to see people wanting to take these precious rights that make our country great, away from the people. I would also add that countries that have enacted gun control have also seen their violent crimes, both with and without guns rise after said bans were enacted. Because the criminals will never care about laws, and the law abiding people are left defenseless. God Bless you and America, stay safe.

  • Arthur Lieber

    Anabelle, I too hope that you stay safe. I also agree that the ability to disagree in a civil fashion is one of the strong points of our country. In my mind, the key to an issue like the Second Amendment is balancing our rights. None are absolute; we must compromise when different rights bash into one another. As I said, I favor the right to safety over the right to own a gun. But honest people can disagree.

  • Tyler

    You favor the right to safety over the right to own a gun, even though owning a gun does in fact allow you to safer, to protect yourself, from those who would do you harm? It has been quite a while since I have seen anybody say something that contradicted itself so badly.

  • Ratherdrive

    A standing army was created in Article One, well prior to the BOA.

    Good to see you mentioned the Virginia Convention to Ratify, which is where the debate on the 2A took place. And where private ownership of firearms was not even discussed, it was just assumed.

    Self defense did not come up, either.

    That convention made it very clear that what Virginia, and the rest of the South, did not want infringed by Congress was the practice of using militia as slave patrols in the South. Can’t very well maintain slavery without force, obviously.

  • Ratherdrive

    Tench Coxe was nowhere near Richmond when the Second Amendment was being debated.

  • na

    Who says they are not absolute? You can bring in all the illegals you want and turn a blind eye to their voting, give them drivers license, our social security, let them bring in diseases, basically threatening the efficacy of cities and states, stoke the flames of divide between man and woman, kidnap children and give them to homosexuals, none of which is absolute, as long as we are armed. You know it, we know it. Cowards use pens and hope everyone agrees, men use arms and care not if you agree.

    You can write away whatever you want, but that does not make it so in the hearts and minds of those who hold dear, their right to self defense from any and all who may pose a threat to them, their liberties, and their safety. That is what freedom is. The continual encroachement and degridation, as witnessed over the past 150 years, has nothing to do with abolishing rights at all does it? All rights, which the SC has said cannot be converted into a crime, has been, if you do not want to ask for permission to use them.

    Slavery is the context this fits in, where those who want to live off the public dole create laws legalizing their crimes, while at the same time criminalizing rights where only the strong will contest it.

    ” I favor the right to safety over the right to own a gun. But honest people can disagree”
    Who keeps you safe? I know, the police. Who is keeping Baltimore safe? Who is kept Ferguson safe? Ever see a militia kidnap children? Ever see the militia impose an illegal traffic stop meant to drive revenue?
    Ever seen the militia gun people down who dont want to submit to their unlawful and unconstitutional authority?
    No you have not. Why? Because they are freedom loving patriots doing what they do for free, at no cost to you. Can any other feminist loving assumed authoritorian in a costume say the same thing? Nope!
    I rest my case. The 2nd amendment is an individual right, it has no limits, as none were placed on it.
    All laws which are contrary to the constitution are null and void, and in fact should not even be attempted without a charge of insurrection, treason, and a public hanging.
    I know, to you I sound angry, but Im not. Some of us actually can exist without letting our wittle feelings control our reason.

  • na

    Even if they had the numbers to overturn it, honest and law abiding people will become criminals and you will see a civil war. We do not want to be ruled over. We want government actors to honor their oath to protect and serve, and if they cant, if they cannot control their desire for more power, they should take the honorable road and quit, as well as return all the booty they have plundered under the guise of public programs.

  • Joe M

    This is an old blog/post, but I have to respond.

    US v Miller wasn’t a clear-cut victory for either guns rights supporters or gun controllers. Miller and his lawyers didn’t even present their side of the case in front of SCOTUS. Only one side was presented, so conclusions drawn from that case are sketchy at best. Not that it really matters, but the Second Amendment doesn’t grant any rights. It merely recognizes them. Clearly, Jackson was wrong. SCOTUS settled the individual v. collective right with the Heller and McDonald decisions.

    The 1934 NFA isn’t about “sound policy.” It’s intended to be a revenue generator.

  • JimiJames

    I don’t see the contradiction at all. Statistically speaking, owning a gun makes you less safe. Study after study shows that. So, there’s merit to the idea that not having a gun around makes you safer.

  • Arthur Lieber

    I would certainly agree with you on this.

  • SY Phonik

    the whole idea of the bill of rights, the whole purpose and intent is to declare individual rights & freedoms and also to let the government know where their powers end. The idea that the founding fathers would make the 2nd amendment about protecting the government is absurd. Notice they use “A” militia and not “THE” militia. The militia was the citizens , the people, the framers of the bill just got out of a war with the biggest empire at the time, and they wanted to make sure the civilian populous could raise up with weapons equivalent to the armies of the time to form well regulated, functioning, ad hock militia to fight off any threat , be it foreign or domestic or insurrection from the top down. If you read the rest of the documents they wrote in that time period you can really get a good idea what they were thinking at the time. The framers were rebellious s.o.b’s and regularly talked about it. If you are going to try and dissect the 2nd amendment using your perception from a modern-day standpoint I suggest the author go read their other works and immerse themselves into the language & mindset of the day

  • Dan T

    Arthur I read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, I could not find the right to safety. All the rights that i read seemed to do one thing. Protect you FROM the government. Furthermore the Constitution does not Grant you rights. it prevents the government from taking rights from you. It sets the limits of government. If you truly have an interest in what many knowledgable men debated while writing the Constitution then you should read the Federalist Papers. If you want to just to subject others to what you feel would be better, then that is what the Constitution is there to prevent. Regardless which side of the aisle you are from.

  • In the 18th century, “to keep and bear arms” meant “to serve in the military.” It had nothing to do with anyone owning anything.

    When you think about it, it’s really pretty stupid to think the Founding Fathers inserted a plug for a commercial product into the Bill of Rights.

  • Chris

    Where is the proof in that statement? Were you alive at the time to understand the colloquial references and idiomatic syntax that they spoke? Have you done research to back up that statement? Do the actual words to keep and bear arms in any way equate to the term to serve in the military? Banna actually meant apple to our founding fathers is what you are stating.

  • Chris

    NA, Your comments are fantastic and correctly reflect my own beliefs and opinions. Thank you for stating them.

  • jake freeland

    Arthur if you are so concerned about being safe why dont you protect yourself with a weapon?

  • jake freeland

    I’d like to see those statistics.

  • Liberal Fascist

    First the Militia was NOT the continental army not the oldest armed forces in the US, the Marines.
    The CAPITAL M Mitilia was and is CITIZENS who took up their personal arms and fought off the British . does Lexington and Concorde mean anything to the author of this idiocy?
    There was no OFFICIAL armed force of the U.S. at that point. It was shop owners and farmers.
    That’s why it says “the right of the PEOPLE. NOT the right of those serving in the continental army or marines.
    Your 1934 reference was to stop the free sale of MACHINE GUNS, by imposing a 200 tax on the sale of them. The same tax by the way we paid for OUR MACHINE GUNS SITTING IN OUR GUN SAFE. IN 1986 it was rewritten to prevent the sale of new machine guns to civilians. Which was an extension of the 1967 NFA Amnesty act.
    Also you seem to forget that the central government was not designed to be the monstrosity it is today. We were a collection of states with our own laws who would send Militia units to defend the other states if the continental army which was comprised of volunteers from the several States was not sufficient as in 1812.
    Today’s so called comon sense gun laws are neither. It fails to address the FACT that 80% of gun violence is minority on minority but because it’s racist to address that liberals try to rewrite history and take arms from law abiding citizens.
    You also IGNORE that criminals do not follow laws. That’s why they are called criminals. Unless you plan to eliminate a person’s right to protection from search and seizure and go door to door with metal detectors and ground penetrating radar any gun laws will ONLY be followed by those who follow the law to begin with.
    There is a reason the cities with the most draconian gun laws have the highest violent crime and violence rates. That includes Europe with emphasis on England who’s violent crime makes the US look like children since gun ownership was banned.
    In areas where there are open carry and large numbers of cwp holders violent crime rates drop dramatically.
    Yes you have the nuts who open fire on schools, but in China you had a man with a sword kill 16 people in a market.
    My whole family carries including my daughter’s. The reason is simple as it is scary. This needs to be burned into people’s minds.”THE SUPREME COURT RULED. A CITIZEN HAS NO REPEAT NO PRESUMPTION OF PROTECTION BY POLICE.” In other words you are on your own even if a cop is parked on the corner as he does not have to offer any protection to you. Only clean up the mess after the carnage ends

  • Liberal Fascist

    Bullshit. Sorry but look at England and France their violent crime, rape, and robbery are unreal. London s crime rate equals NYC D.C. and Chicago COMBINED

  • Meaningful Discourse

    You make a sound argument. However, if you are going to read the Constitution in terms of what the framers meant at the time of its writing, then by that argument we should limit the right to bear arms to the arms of that time, i.e. muskets. Now if we use this interpretation of the amendment that you put forth, “The framers of the bill just got out of a war with the biggest empire at the time, and they wanted to make sure the civilian populous could raise up with weapons equivalent to the armies of the time ….” that would mean that private citizens today should, if they have the means, be able to “keep and bear” rocket launchers, tanks, fighter jets, drones, and even nuclear warheads because those are weapons equivalent to the armies of the time.

  • SY Phonik

    You can own most of those items save a nuclear weapons but i dont think you could afford one if you wanted.

    The framers didn’t say the right to bear arms as long as it’s a musket

  • SY Phonik

    Good thing your opinion means f**** all when it comes to the bill of rights.

  • SY Phonik

    well said!

    (side note, how many of those people who follow laws, would follow the law if it banned guns? lol not many id venture to guess)

  • SY Phonik

    that is the stupidest thing I’ve read all day. the right to bear arms for the peurpose of a well regulated militia meant keep at home, or be able to carry, and maintain those weapons so if so called upon could form up to protect the continental U.S & the states from attack foreign or domestic.

    they didnt even have a “military” when the formed the U.S, they had the malitia,, which was… a loose group of civilians.

    when you think about it , its pretty smart to think the founding fathers made provisions to protect the right of the people to bear arms to protect themselves and the nation.

  • SY Phonik

    smh, wtf is that guy smoking LOL

    I guess the right of free speech actually meant you had the right to ride a horse.

  • SY Phonik

    you’re not going to because it’s b.s

    there is noway you are less safe by owning a gun LMFAO

  • BJ Van Gundy

    Ahhhhh… and here we have it! The author of the OPINION above, which doesn’t cite ANY historical references to what the Fore Fathers of our Country believed, admits that he wrote what is above for the sole purpose of supporting HIS opinion that fewer guns = safety.

    For the record, Mr. @arthur_lieber:disqus , there are a hundred or more quotes, such as the one that @anabellekyrie:disqus cites, that could be posted here to support the supposition that there is an individual right to bear arms in this Country. Very few, unless taken out of context, that would support your position.

    Additionally. A logical look at the poorly named “Bill of Rights” (they didn’t confer rights at all, but restricted the government’s ability to restrict the Peoples’ rights) would show that your view would require one to believe that 9 of the 10 Amendments were written to restrain the government from violating the Peoples’ rights, but in the single individual case of the Second Amendment the Founding Fathers decided to restrict the rights of the People.

    Is that REALLY what you expect us to believe? I know it is what you want… but please explain to me how this could be.

  • BJ Van Gundy

    Sir. I respectfully request where the right to safety is enumerated, in the Constitution or otherwise. The fact is, you only have a RIGHT to that which you are given by God (or whatever deity you believe in). Safety is most certainly not a RIGHT. However self defense most certainly is.