Over the course of recent history, there has been a great deal of
discussion regarding various interpretations of the Second
Amendment to the United States Constitution. Most pundits agree
that the ambiguous and indecisive wording of this amendment
makes any number of interpretations not only possible, but also
plausible. From the left come theories that concentrate on the words
“well-organized militia”, while from the right one hears arguments
that focus on the phrase “the right to bear arms”. I am not, nor do I
claim to be, an expert on Constitutional law. However, as a well-
educated, freethinking individual, I believe that the key to a full
understanding of the Second Amendment lies in a literal reading of
the entire amendment.
No credible case can be made for a completely literal reading of the
Constitution and its amendments; anyone who would try to argue
this point should spend some time reflecting on the phrase “all men
are created equal” in the company of French people. The Constitution
is a timeless document, a magical document that has proven time and
again to be worthy of our respect and admiration. One must
appreciate the irony that the true literal meaning of the Second
Amendment can only be discovered by approaching it with a
completely open mind.
I believe that the root of the confusion (on the part of the American
public as a whole, and Constitutional scholars specifically)
surrounding the Second Amendment can be traced to a simple and
easily clarified semantic issue. Most people, when reading the phrase
“the right to bear arms,” automatically assume that the word “bear”
is used as a verb, meaning “to carry” or “to hold”. While this would
seem to be a reasonable interpretation to most people, it is a boring
and unimaginative interpretation. And if I had to pick two words to
describe the framers of our Constitution, the words “boring” and
“unimaginative” would not make the cut.
In my opinion, our founding fathers used the word “bear” as an
adjectival derivation of the noun “bear”, meaning “a large, mean and
scary animal that eats berries, honey and sheep and sometimes
people.” I know this is a revolutionary interpretation, and that many
people (either out of spite or jealousy or a misguided sense of
academic superiority) will belittle my insight. But if we as a nation
can accept this premise, we can focus our attention on the true
ambiguity of the Second Amendment; namely, did our founding
fathers use the word “bear” literally or metaphorically?
It is very unlikely that the intention of the Second Amendment was
to ensure the right of Americans to run around like a bunch of
crazies, starting fights and using the arms of bears as weapons to
defend themselves. From an ecological standpoint, a literal
interpretation doesn’t really make sense either. Although bears were
surely an ever-present danger to colonial Americans, arbitrarily
branding their arms as the weapon of choice could have easily led to
the extinction of several bear species. Even if one decides to interpret
“bear arms” literally, there is the little matter of the phrase “well-
organized militia”. In the event that Americans took to defending
their lives, liberties and pursuits of happiness with bear arms, the
“militia” clause would surely serve as a safeguard to ensure that
Americans weren’t running around willy nilly clawing everything in
sight.
I would argue that the intention of the Second Amendment was to
encourage fitness and good health on the part of Americans of every
generation. Thus, the “right to bear arms” is really providing for the
“right to develop bear-like arms.” In other words, no individual,
corporation or government entity should be able to infringe on
Americans’ right to join health clubs, arm wrestle and create
alternative work-out routines (like kick-boxing aerobics or jazzercise)
no matter how absurd these activities may seem to others. I can’t help
but imagine our founding fathers in heaven, looking down on us and
chuckling at our confusion and irrelevant debates about gun control.
In any case, if I am elected President, I vow to do my utmost to ensure
that this right to bear-like arms remains a sacred piece of societal
fabric.
discussion regarding various interpretations of the Second
Amendment to the United States Constitution. Most pundits agree
that the ambiguous and indecisive wording of this amendment
makes any number of interpretations not only possible, but also
plausible. From the left come theories that concentrate on the words
“well-organized militia”, while from the right one hears arguments
that focus on the phrase “the right to bear arms”. I am not, nor do I
claim to be, an expert on Constitutional law. However, as a well-
educated, freethinking individual, I believe that the key to a full
understanding of the Second Amendment lies in a literal reading of
the entire amendment.
No credible case can be made for a completely literal reading of the
Constitution and its amendments; anyone who would try to argue
this point should spend some time reflecting on the phrase “all men
are created equal” in the company of French people. The Constitution
is a timeless document, a magical document that has proven time and
again to be worthy of our respect and admiration. One must
appreciate the irony that the true literal meaning of the Second
Amendment can only be discovered by approaching it with a
completely open mind.
I believe that the root of the confusion (on the part of the American
public as a whole, and Constitutional scholars specifically)
surrounding the Second Amendment can be traced to a simple and
easily clarified semantic issue. Most people, when reading the phrase
“the right to bear arms,” automatically assume that the word “bear”
is used as a verb, meaning “to carry” or “to hold”. While this would
seem to be a reasonable interpretation to most people, it is a boring
and unimaginative interpretation. And if I had to pick two words to
describe the framers of our Constitution, the words “boring” and
“unimaginative” would not make the cut.
In my opinion, our founding fathers used the word “bear” as an
adjectival derivation of the noun “bear”, meaning “a large, mean and
scary animal that eats berries, honey and sheep and sometimes
people.” I know this is a revolutionary interpretation, and that many
people (either out of spite or jealousy or a misguided sense of
academic superiority) will belittle my insight. But if we as a nation
can accept this premise, we can focus our attention on the true
ambiguity of the Second Amendment; namely, did our founding
fathers use the word “bear” literally or metaphorically?
It is very unlikely that the intention of the Second Amendment was
to ensure the right of Americans to run around like a bunch of
crazies, starting fights and using the arms of bears as weapons to
defend themselves. From an ecological standpoint, a literal
interpretation doesn’t really make sense either. Although bears were
surely an ever-present danger to colonial Americans, arbitrarily
branding their arms as the weapon of choice could have easily led to
the extinction of several bear species. Even if one decides to interpret
“bear arms” literally, there is the little matter of the phrase “well-
organized militia”. In the event that Americans took to defending
their lives, liberties and pursuits of happiness with bear arms, the
“militia” clause would surely serve as a safeguard to ensure that
Americans weren’t running around willy nilly clawing everything in
sight.
I would argue that the intention of the Second Amendment was to
encourage fitness and good health on the part of Americans of every
generation. Thus, the “right to bear arms” is really providing for the
“right to develop bear-like arms.” In other words, no individual,
corporation or government entity should be able to infringe on
Americans’ right to join health clubs, arm wrestle and create
alternative work-out routines (like kick-boxing aerobics or jazzercise)
no matter how absurd these activities may seem to others. I can’t help
but imagine our founding fathers in heaven, looking down on us and
chuckling at our confusion and irrelevant debates about gun control.
In any case, if I am elected President, I vow to do my utmost to ensure
that this right to bear-like arms remains a sacred piece of societal
fabric.
| The Second Amendment |
 |  |  |  |  |
 |  |  |  |  |