top of page

The Second Amendment, Part 3

The American Republic was born in armed conflict. While statesmen asserted the independence of the United States in an eloquently intelligent declaration, tens of thousands of British soldiers and sailors converged on the American Colonies to subdue the rebellion by force. American Revolutionaries had to wage an eight-year war to free the new nation from British rule and ensure that the promise of independence would be fulfilled. When the American colonies began to fight the British for their desired independence, it confronted a professional Army, arguably considered the best in the world, able to provide their soldiers with the logistics necessary to combat the rebels. But the new Americans had to try to put together an army without money and without a strong government to organize that effort. So each colony raised regiments of soldiers to send to the Continental Army.

In 1775, there were few factories in America capable of producing firearms, let alone, in the quantities necessary to sustain an army for several years. At the height of the war, fifty thousand men served in the Continental Army, with another thirty thousand state and militia troops fighting for the American cause. To arm these soldiers, American officials gathered weapons from an array of sources on two continents. At the beginning of the Revolution, the army relied primarily on soldiers bringing weapons from home. Depending on one’s personal economy, your typical privately owned firearm, was the same as a Continental Army soldier’s weaponry. American soldiers also carried weapons captured from the enemy in the field and reissued to Continental and state troops. Later, France shipped to the Colonies superbly made French muskets, which became a favorite of Continental soldiers.

In essence, the weapons carried by the citizenry and militias, was the same as those carried by the Continental Army, depending on personal finances and logistics. Furthermore, our Founders, being well versed on the history of the World, were also witness to the advances in firearm technologies, which they had seen in their own lifetimes. They anticipated that these advancements would continue but saw no need to place any language in the 2nd Amendment restricting the types of weapons that could be privately owned, nor any mention as to the intent of those firearms. Think on the implications of that!

A popular argument is that when the 2nd was written, assault rifles did not exist but rather, slow-firing blackpowder, smoothbore muskets. To that I say, yes they are right. Assault rifles didn’t exist then and don’t exist today either. The term “Assault Rifle” is a modern intentional mischaracterization of the letters “AR,” on America’s most popular, semi-auto repeating sporting firearm, the AR15. The phrase emerged in 1990s during the Clinton Administration, when the abreviation “AR,” was interpreted to say “Assault Rifle,” but contrary to popular belief, AR does not stand for assault rifle but rather, after the name of the company that engineered it, ArmaLite Rifle.

In 1993, while chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Joe Biden, was one of the lawmakers who doggedly lead the Federal “Assault Weapons” Ban. If you want to pursue this false narrative, then I can say the Assault Rifle of the 18th Century was the Musket. The 2nd was never about hunting or sports either. That’s just another fantasy arrow in the Left’s quiver of anti-2nd Amendment lies.

The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English Common Law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights. Sir William Blackstone, who was an inspiration to the Founders, described this right as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense and resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.

The origins of the Second Amendment can be traced to ancient Roman and Florentine times, but its English origins, developed in the late 16th century, when Queen Elizabeth the First, instituted a national militia in which, individuals of all classes were required by law, to possess weapons, be proficient in their use, and take part in the defense of the realm.

Gun control in America originated with the post civil war Democratic Party and their terrorist organization, the KKK, which roamed the country side at night, raiding the farms and homes of newly freed blacks, taking their guns and thus making it impossible for them to defend themselves against the injustices to be perpetrated upon them. The NRA was, partially born, out of an attempt by Republicans to help black’s ownership of firearms and train them in their effective use.

Fast forward to the 20th Century. The first piece of national gun control legislation was passed on June 26, 1934. The National Firearms Act (NFA) by a Democrat, of course. Franklin Delano Roosevelt's “New Deal for Crime,” was meant to curtail “gangland” crimes of that era such as the “St. Valentine's Day Massacre,” or so they say, however, its consequence was, you guessed it, restricting the access private citizens to certain types of firearms, particularly automatic weapons, among others. Before that, you could buy a machine gun from your local hardware store with all the ammo you could carry. Soon there after, more restrictions and laws were passed which affected only law-abiding citizens, of course. And here we are today.

The Democratic Party, the party of the Confederacy, the KKK, Jim Crow laws, and opposition to the Civil Rights Act, is still the party of Gun control. But today’s Democratic party, it’s even more extreme. It’s not your grandparents’ Democratic Party anymore. John F. Kennedy couldn’t even win the nomination today. The Democratic Party is being taken over by Socialists and Marxists, Hell-bent on the fundamental transformation of America into the United Socialist States of America. These Collectivists are even more pathologically opposed to an armed citizenry than the Democrats of old.

Today, the Second Amendment, is as important to our liberty as it was over two centuries ago. The difference is that, instead of a Monarchy thousands of miles away, claiming ownership over us, we have a political party saturated by an insidiously Godless ideology, attempting to take over or country. An ideology opposed and rejecting of our founding principles. An ideology that enslaves both the body and soul. An ideology based on the omnipotent power of the State with no pretense or expectation of individual liberties or rights. The 2020 election will determine which way our country goes, at least, for the perceivable future.

154 views0 comments


bottom of page