The first assumption we must consider is whether the second amendment is an individual right or a collective right. To arrive at a logical conclusion, we must try to understand the historical context of the second amendment. 

The founding fathers were strongly influenced by English distrust of standing armies. They believed a standing army was a key threat to individual liberty. When the founding fathers were crafting the Constitution, the British Army’s actions to seize the firearms of the people were fresh in their minds. 

Tench Coxe, in his “Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution,” (Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789) wrote:

As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.

While this is a very brief description of the historical context of the second amendment, I believe it clearly does not in any manner indicate a collective or state right, but an individual right of an armed citizenry to defend itself from potential tyranny imposed by a standing army. This individual right viewpoint was recently validated by the Supreme Court in its ‘DC v. Heller’ decision.

The second assumption we must agree upon is whether or not individual rights “expire” or can be taken away. It must first be stated that the constitution is not a book of laws and regulations, but a framework upon which our laws and regulations are based (the only exception to this is the eighteenth amendment which attempted to establish law and limit our rights – fortunately the twenty-first amendment corrected that aberration). While laws can change based on the needs of the state, the framework upon which they are based cannot without amending that framework. Should the constitution be amended to remove the “expired” right to keep and bear arms?

Many people argue the second amendment is no longer relevant, that we are not threatened by our standing military forces and have no real need to defend against tyranny. While it is likely true that we don’t need to keep and bear arms to defend against tyranny, does it mean we no longer have the right? Do rights expire upon attaining some set standard or because they are no longer popular? If so, will the right to free speech expire? What about the right to the free exercise of religion?  Or the right to be secure in our homes against unreasonable searches and seizures?  If we do allow rights to expire, who will decide what the standard is for expiry? 

I believe once we agree with the assumptions that the right to keep and bear arms is, in fact, an individual right and that none of us really want our rights to “expire,” we can only logically agree that the second amendment is relevant today and will continue to be. But what of the hunters and other sportsmen? Does the second amendment apply to them? I believe the answer is clearly yes. Not because they hunt or shoot, but because they are Americans living under the US Constitution.