Conveniently I read a few blogs recently appertaining to a matter that can be discussed as a classical conservative conundrum; that being the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms. Most often the conservative blogosphere is clogged with those seeking to impose ecclesiastical duties upon the Constitution, obsessing over the genitals of others, building a façade that gives every fart of Adam Smith the scent of constitutionality, or elevating winning wars over the justification for fighting them. It takes reports of lunatic violence to inspire even casual reconsideration of the twenty-five words in the one sentence that is the entirety of the Second Amendment. Many, it seems to me, reject the challenge of the subject and the necessity our bloody reality compels to reason. In his speech celebrating the first anniversary of the Constitution, James Wilson, whom some consider along with Madison the co-father of the document, asked, “Shall we be supine, and look, in listless languor, for the blessings and enjoyments, to which exertion is inseparably attached? If we would be happy; we must be active. The Constitution and our manners must mutually support and be supported.” A new, weak nation on a forested continent and its heavily urbanized superpower legatee must seek some practical agreement on weaponry in society. In the very first Federalist Paper, Hamilton opined, “The consciousness of good intentions distains ambiguity”. We have been content with ambiguity for too long.

Usually consideration of constitutional matters is heavily weighted by the “intent” of the Founders. I think a very good and often over-looked reference of founding intentions is The Articles of Confederation. The basic premises and aspirations of national union were enunciated in that document. Its heir, the Constitution, principally altered the political organization of the states and created a strong central government, but many passages of the Articles found their way verbatim or closely paraphrased in the succeeding document. Since many of the representatives participated in the creation of both documents, and all were indubitably intimately familiar with the Articles of Confederation, I think a case can be made certain themes from their revolutionary experience and the typical arrangements of 18th century society dispersed on a wilderness continent were so dominant in their minds and understanding they translated from one document to its successor with an arbitrary acceptance of their underpinnings. This can be seen in the Articles where phrases such as [A State] “shall have received certain advice of a resolution being formed by some nation of Indians to invade such State” or allowing a State to defend itself sans a declaration of war from the central government if “such State be infested by pirates”. These were areas of danger in addition to the threat of hostility posed by British, French, and Spanish neighbors with great political, financial, and strategic incentives to cause or benefit from the failure of the new nation. This is why the fourth paragraph of Article Six of the Articles of Confederation is instructive when it says in part, “nor shall any body of forces be kept up by any State, in time of peace, except such number only as in the judgment of the United States in Congress assembled shall be deemed requisite to garrison the forts necessary for the defence of such State; but every State shall always keep up a well regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutred, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of field- pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition, and camp equipage”. If this passage is viewed in the context of the times, with remembrance that the arms in public stores, were the initial arsenal of the rebels against Great Britain, and it was these public stores of arms the British were on their way to confiscate when rebuffed at Lexington and Concord, it is easy to see the genesis and mind-set behind the Constitution’s Second Amendment, “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.”

With just these observations, I don’t see how it can be unprofitable to have a robust debate about how the bearing of arms has come to be understood and needs to be understood in 21st century society, and deal with the ambiguity of personal arsenals and domestic tranquility. It is, it seems to me, more conservative to address this question, than to ignore it.