How the 2nd Amendment Has Been Misunderstood and Misused

The second amendment has been taken out of context and been applied in ways never intended by the founding fathers. It has almost nothing to do with the individual’s right to own weaponry and almost everything to do with Jefferson and Madison’s belief that expensive standing armies exploited common citizens and enriched aristocrats. The third amendment that prevents the government from forcing citizens to house soldiers is related.

Jefferson and Madison had a close friendship based on a shared 

philosophy. One of the beliefs they shared was that monarchs were enriched by standing armies. The reasoning was simple. It was expensive to fund an army and this required exploitative taxation that generated a lot of money – money that could be used to fund lavish lifestyles at Versailles as well as armaments, food and supplies for soldiers. Rather than create such expensive standing armies, it was better to rely on militias. A militia was simply an army of local people. (This was a stark contrast to the British soldiers from overseas who local colonialists didn’t trust and who created such tension and conflict even before the American Revolution began.) A democracy was government of the people. A militia was meant to be an army of the people.

The third amendment builds on the second amendment – the amendment that guarantees Americans that they wouldn’t be forced to share their homes with soldiers. Both the second and the third amendment are designed to free Americans from standing armies.
Jefferson and Madison didn’t like the idea of an expensive government and looked for ways to lower its cost. The second, third, fifth and sixth amendments do that.

When peace and safety was threatened by outside forces, by war, it was to be countered by local volunteers – militias. This is defined by the second and third amendments.
When peace and safety was threatened internally, by crime, it was to be countered by local volunteers – juries. The sixth and seventh amendments define the right to a jury, a group called out from the community in the same way as a militia.

Madison and Jefferson’s view of a modern democracy was that it would be run by local volunteers who could shape their local defense against crime and war, meaning fewer taxes and more control for these communities.

Rights generally suggest some responsibility. The right to bear arms was paired with the responsibility to be in a militia, ready to be called upon to keep the peace, to protect from outside threats. There is nothing to suggest that this right to own guns is separate from the responsibility to be a part of the militia that Jefferson and Madison hoped would substitute for standing armies. Militias and juries were part of their vision of a government that, in the words of Lincoln, was to be "of the people, by the people, for the people."

Amendments

2nd
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.

3rd
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner; nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

5th
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury ...

6th
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed ...