A common attack on the right to keep and bear arms is that the Second Amendment recognizes the right of a state to create a militia, not an individual right. The attack is based on the opening phrase of the Second Amendment: "A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state. . . " The next phrase, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is interpreted to mean it is only valid so long as it is practiced within the confines of the state's right to create a militia. The attack goes further to then claim that in today's world the militia has been replaced by the national guard.

These attacks depend on interpreting the original intention of the Second Amendment. If the Second Amendment's original intention was to restrict the right to keep and bear arms to joining a state's militia, then the promise that there would be no infringement of that right is illusionary.

If, on the other hand, the Second Amendment guarantees that the government will not interfere with the right to keep and bear arms, gun control, especially federal gun control, is a violation of that promise.

To settle this dispute we first need to understand that the purpose of the Bill of Rights was to reassure the people that the new government being formed would not revert to tyranny. The Bill of Rights was not a promise to the states; nor was it a promise to the states' representatives at the Constitutional convention. It was an enunciation of guarantees to the people. So let's start off by understanding who "the people" were and what their political context was.

First and shamefully foremost "the people" were white males. Women did not have the right to vote and had the status of humanized property. Non-whites had even lower status. So it should be understood and never forgotten that when entering a discussion about "the people" during the nation's founding one is discussing white males almost exclusively.

The political context can be determined from the name of the new country formed by this new constitution: The United States. It means that geographically and politically independent states joined together to form a new political entity whose existence depended on those independent states. At the time, one did not consider himself a citizen of the United States. One's primary political allegiance was to his state. A resident of Virginia considered himself a citizen of Virginia, a Delaware resident was a citizen of Delaware. Each of these states had their own separate system of government that could not be interfered with by any other state or over-ridden by a central government. An excellent example of the autonomy of each individual state is Slavery. Each state had its rules regarding Slavery and no central government could overturn those laws. When the people in the states decided to unite, it was understood that their autonomy would remain unmolested. The best example of this is the First Amendment.

In school we are taught that the First Amendment guarantees each person freedom of religion, press and assembly. That interpretation would be news to the citizens of Massachusetts at the time because until 1825 Congregationalism was their established religion. You might wonder how a state could establish a religion in a country that guaranteed each of its citizens freedom of religion. The problem here is that your question would be based on a mistaken assumption. In fact, the First Amendment does not guarantee freedom of religion, press or assembly.

What the First Amendment says is that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" etc. What this meant to the people at the time of the founding was that the new government as embodied by the Congress shall not infringe upon the rights of the people to religion, press, speech and assembly. However, the state one is a citizen of may certainly infringe on those rights. That is why Massachusetts had an established religion for up to 36 years after the Bill of Rights was passed.

If this sounds like legal wrangling it is important to understand that division of powers was more than just a technicality to the people. Remember, their primary political identity was as a citizen of the state they resided in. In contrast, today we think of ourselves differently. For instance, I live in California. I do not consider myself a citizen of the state of California; I consider myself a resident. My citizenship is that of the US. But at the founding people actually considered themselves citizens of their particular states the same way I consider myself a citizen of the US.

A small example of language might help here. In his excellent book, "Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men: A History of the American Civil War" Jeffrey Rogers Hummel points out that up until the war between the states, the US was referred to in the plural. For instance, a newspaper article would read "The United States are. . . " whereas today it would read "The US is. . ."

It was appropriate for Massachusetts to have an established religion. In fact, it would have been unconstitutional at the founding for the central government, whether in the form of Congress or the Supreme Court, to demand that Massachusetts disassemble its state religion.

To understand the Second Amendment's original meaning, it must be looked at through the eyes of the citizen of a state, a state that is so powerful and so autonomous, it can establish a religion and practice slavery. But at the heart of that state is the people, the individual residents of that geographical and political area.

This brings us to the Insurrection theory behind the Second Amendment. According to this theory, for the states to retain their autonomy they needed a guarantee that their independence would not be overwhelmed by a powerful central government. That guarantee was provided by the opening clause of the Second Amendment: "A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state." While the theory is credible and well documented, there is a fallacy in the argument. The Bill of Rights was not dependent on the votes of the states' representatives to the Constitutional Convention. In order for the new country to be formed, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights had to be accepted by the people, the individual white male residents of each state.

If we were to look at the Second Amendment through the eyes of a resident of a particular state it would mean to them: a) the new central government recognizes that your state needs to remain free and b) to guarantee that freedom your right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

A comparable rewording of the Second Amendment in today's syntax would read: "For a country to remain free it must be able to defend itself. The people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed so that they may be able to defend their country's freedom." Hence when Congress passes any gun control law it is limiting the ability of the country to remain free, according to contextual interpretation of the Second Amendment.

This contextual interpretation is based on the following assumptions:

1) "The people" as referred to in the constitution were the residents of individual states. This is rather obvious. The ratifying body consisted of individual states and the states existed at the will of the people.

2) Each individual state was autonomous. Again rather obvious through the examples of slavery and state control of religion.

3) "The people" considered themselves citizens of their own state just as we consider ourselves citizens of the United States. This is a no-brainer once you realize there was nothing else for them to consider themselves citizens of.

4) The people did not vote to give up their rights to a central authority. Instead the purpose of the Bill of Rights was to protect the people from centralized government. The opening phrase of the First Amendment elegantly proves that: "Congress shall make no law."

It has been argued that the First Amendment is the best protection against intrusive government. A close reading of that amendment provides a chilling rebuttal. The First Amendment leaves the door open for the state government to violate each and every right that Congress can't. The Second Amendment provides much better protection. It is the safeguard against both state and federal intrusion. Note how by restricting the First Amendment to Congress, the rights of religion, press, speech and assembly can be infringed. Now contrast the limited protections of the First Amendment to the explicit statement, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." In fact, the Second Amendment guaranteed more freedom from intrusive government than the First Amendment did.

The clause, "A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state," was not a restriction on the right to keep and bear arms. It was a statement that freedom is dependent on the ability to defend it. The opening clause of the Second Amendment provides the recognition that for a free government to exist the people must be armed. The clause is not a limitation. It is a statement in support of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."