Remember the true meaning of the Second Amendment

To the Times: From the beginning, the real purpose of the Second Amendment was never simply to guarantee to all Americans the right to own a gun, contrary to the way it is used and abused by gun rights advocates today. Why then did our Founding Fathers put it second only to freedom of speech, press, religion, and assembly in the Bill of Rights?

A careful reading of the Second Amendment makes clear that, rather than allowing individuals to own firearms to go hunting or protect themselves, the real purpose was the organization of armed militias. Note the beginning phrase: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state ...”

That same language was there from the beginning. Here is how James Madison framed the issue in a 1789 speech to the House of Representatives on behalf of a Bill of Rights: “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.”

Even before there was a U.S. Constitution, states were linking the right to bear arms to the organization of militias in their own back yard. Virginia is often cited as a case in point. Here is as excerpt from its constitution, adopted in 1788:

“That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.”

That language actually goes back to 1776, when Virginia was still a colony. All of which is a far cry from the untrammeled access to guns by anybody

wanting to own, carry, etc., firearms up to and including semiautomatic weapons with high-capacity magazines that are only a bump stock away from becoming fully automatic.

Enter the National Rifle Association, the organization that uses “Second Amendment” (minus the reference to well regulated militias) as a rallying cry to mobilize the gun rights community and exert intense pressure on lawmakers lest they support sensible restrictions on gun ownership. It wasn’t always that way. In 1871, the NRA was founded — not to lobby Congress but for the purpose of teaching soldiers how to handle weapons.

In the 1930s, as America sought to deal with the rising homicide rate stemming from the spread of organized crime in the Prohibition Era, NRA supported the National Firearms Act that, among other things, banned access to machine guns and other automatic weapons. In 1934 during congressional hearings, Karl Frederick, NRA president, testified, “I have never believed in the general practice of carrying weapons. I seldom carry one ... I do not believe in the general promiscuous toting of guns. I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses.”

The NRA also supported the Gun Control Act of 1968. Then things began to change. In the 1970s, the organization was taken over by a faction identified with the more conservative wing of the Republican Party. Since then, NRA has steadfastly fought just about any measure that might limit access to firearms by anybody.

As a result, despite overwhelming public support for sensible gun policies, lawmakers have tended to shy away from the issue. Even calamitous events like the massacre of elementary school children and their teachers in Sandy Hook and the massive loss of life in the Las Vegas shooting have gotten little if any response from our elected representatives.

It doesn’t have to be that way. If enough people insist that their representatives do something to curb the access to guns on the part of people who

shouldn’t own them and rule that military hardware is no longer on the open market, things will change. That’s the nice thing about a democracy like ours, despite its flaws: The same political system that created the Second Amendment also gives people the power to vote unresponsive lawmakers out of office. We just have to have the will to let our representatives know that enough is enough.