Militias or Personal Arms?

This post is just a footnote to the latest round of gun debates touched off by the recent murders at Umpqua Community College, near Roseburg, Oregan. I don't believe I can add anything to the debate without considerable research. I've long been interested in the history of the second amendment. That's what this post is about.

The story starts with confusion and a question. Why's the second amendment so weirdly written? Don't tell me you've never noticed. Have a look:

"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."

Groups like to chop this up for various political reasons, but that's the whole thing as it's written in the second amendment. It's oddly written. The odd wording makes it ambiguous. Does it enshrine a personal right or the right of states to maintain militias? (Incidentally, I have questions about grammar and usage in that amendment. I'm researching them and hope to publish about that sometime in the future.)

An avenue of investigation was suggested by a comment in one of Steven Pinker's books. Vague lines in legal documents are often the result of parties who can't agree. They write language that either side can interpret as they wish, with the hopes that a real consensus can be reached later. If this were the case with the second amendment, where could I find material relevant to the theory? I looked at writings published about the constitution at the it was created.

Pennsylvania ratified the constitution on December 12, 1787 by a vote of 46 to 23. Nearly a week later, 21 of the dissenters published in several newspapers a position paper titled, "The Address and Reasons of Dissent of the Minority of the Convention of Pennsylvania to their Constituents." It contains two relevant statements.

First...

"That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence (sic) of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals."

and...

"That the power of organizing, arming and disciplining the militia (the manner of disciplining the militia to be prescribed by Congress) remain with the individual states."

So there it is. At least some of our founders wanted to enshrine both an individual right to bear arms and a state's right to organize militias.

Early the following summer, Virginia proposed a bill of rights. Their paper contains this line:

"The people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated Militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper, natural and safe defence (sic) of a free State."

(I wasn't able to find an online version of this document; however, it is available in this book by Signet Classic.)

Though it's better worded than our second amendment the Virginia language, had it been adopted, would likely have suffered from the same disagreement as our second amendment. Does it assert an Individual right, or only put the militias under the control of the states?

Both interpretations would agree with the dissenters in Pennsylvania. Why then is that position, whatever it was, not stated more explicitly in the bill of rights? Clearly there's more to this story than I've learned so far.

A friend guessed at a piece of the puzzle that my gut tells me is right on the mark. If the Virginia proposal excluded an individual right, there's a historically plausible reason. The powers in Virginia, and all southern states for that matter, probably didn't want firearms laying around, arms that might land in the hands of slaves.