Posted on 07/27/2025 12:23:18 AM PDT by guitar Josh
I think these are very good arguments to debunk the left wing lies trying to deny us our Constitutional rights.
To set the stage, let’s just look at basic civics: the purpose of any amendment is because something is off limits to being changed through legislation. We should then be able to point to something that was rendered off limits to being changed through legislation due to the ratification of the 2nd Amendment.
The anti gun groups focus exclusively on 2 parts of the 2nd Amendment, “Well Regulated”, and “Militia”. Their arguments are boil down to 2 things, “Well Regulated” means government regulated, and it has the power to ban or restrict anything for public safety or what is deemed to be common sense. The other is that “Militia” created the National Guard. Both are easily disproven.
Let’s start with the false claim that Militia means the 2nd Amendment created the National Guard.
Article 1, Section 8: The Congress shall have Power…
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Article 2, Section 2:
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;
This is important because the above was the law of the land in 1789, prior to the ratification of the 2nd Amendment in 1791. This proves that the Militia/National Guard wasn’t created by the 2nd Amendment, since the NG already existed before the 2nd Amendment was ratified! In other words, if we never had a 2nd Amendment, we would still have a National Guard.
The other refutation is that the Marine Corps was created in 1798, the Coast Guard in 1915, and the Air Force in 1947, all without an amendment. They wouldn’t need one to make the National Guard, either.
The next false claim is that “Well Regulated” really means government regulated. The first argument is that if that’s what the Founders meant, they could have just written “Government Regulated”. The real problem with this argument is that there was no provision stopping a legislature from banning or restricting any weapon prior to the ratification of the 2nd Amendment. New York could have banned any weapon it wanted to in 1790, and it wouldn’t violate the Constitution at all.
It should also be pointed out that this ability to ban any weapons they want comes packaged with, “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”, and a lot of the people who voted to ratify this amendment were also the people who turned a Cold War into a Hot War when Thomas Gage ordered weapons to be confiscated by the government.
Just in summary, according to the anti gun people, the 2nd Amendment doesn’t really change anything. Whether or not it gets ratified, we still have a National Guard, as it existed prior to the ratification of the Bill Of Rights in 1791, and there isn’t anything in the unamended Constitution that would prevent a legislature from banning any weapon for any reason. The left wing misinterpretation means that the 2nd Amendment doesn’t actually change anything or render anything off limits to being changed through legislation, it is just a waste of ink.
Next time you’re talking to someone about this issue, ask them what the 2nd Amendment actually does, and point out that it couldn’t have created the National Guard, and there’s no reason for the Amendment if it allows a legislature to ban weapons.
If you really want to have fun with them, point how hypocritical it is to constantly talk about due process, and then deny due process to all Americans by misinterpretation of the Constitution to nullify it, rather than going through the due process prescribed in Article V.
FYI, the new Illinois safe Gus storage act
States …. to securely store firearms when minors, at risk…bla bla bla, or at risk person…
$1,000 fines…
It looks to list minors separately from other classifications.
As in all minors.
My main point is to show how to defeat left wing claims about the 2nd Amendment, primarily the lies that it created the National Guard or allows broad bans and restrictions on the grounds of common sense or public safety.
It couldn't have created the National Guard when it already existed in Article 1, Section 8 and Article 2, Section 2. It couldn't have granted the legislature power to ban or restrict access to weapons when it could already do that prior to the 2nd Amendment being ratified.
They're either misinterpreting the 2nd Amendment, or it was ratified for no reason, since it doesn't actually do anything.
The second amendment is just that - an amendment. A clarification.
The Constitution is not a document that tells the people what to do. It tells the government what it can do. The second amendment does not tell US, the people, what we can do. It tells the government what it can do.
In the case of the 2nd amendment, it tells the government how.
The Constitution states that the government can maintain a militia consisting of the people. The 2nd amendment lays out further detail: an amendment.
It states that the government can have this militia by regulating (keeping in good working order) weapons for the people in the militia (citizen adults).
To accomplish this all people have a right to own and bear these weapons.
The federal government has been derelict in it’s responsibilities. The federal government is supposed to provide us our weapons and repair them when needed.
They must supply us.
The old claim is that through the civilian marksmanship program, they were providing us with military issue weapons - albeit cheap and not free. That program is now gone.
Like the rest of the Constitution the federal government has broken each and every one of these laws.
A state CAN NOT override the US Constitution, regardless of states rights arguments. That means that no state can enact a law that eliminated the Constitution. To which all state laws that limit gun ownership further than what the Constitution states is null and void.
These states can only enhance these laws. Which oddly enough the Connecticut State charter, among others such as Pennsylvania, actually strengthen the language of the Constitution in regards to gun ownership.
It is not an US problem. It is a THEM problem. The Constitution is a document that tells the government how to act, not us. All of the amendments are not directed to we the people. We the people may do as we wish to seek out freedom, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
You really need to read the highly suppressed and now out of print 1982 Senate report on the RKBA. I have a paper copy from the US Government printing office.
Here is an on line copy.
https://guncite.com/journals/senrpt/senrpt.html
“The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner.”
19th century cases
16. * Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52, at 54 (1878).
“If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the (p.17)penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege.”
17. * Jennings v. State, 5 Tex. Crim. App. 298, at 300-01 (1878).
“We believe that portion of the act which provides that, in case of conviction, the defendant shall forfeit to the county the weapon or weapons so found on or about his person is not within the scope of legislative authority. * * * One of his most sacred rights is that of having arms for his own defence and that of the State. This right is one of the surest safeguards of liberty and self-preservation.”
18. * Andrews v. State, 50 Tenn. 165, 8 Am. Rep. 8, at 17 (1871).
“The passage from Story (Joseph Story: Comments on the Constitution) shows clearly that this right was intended, as we have maintained in this opinion, and was guaranteed to and to be exercised and enjoyed by the citizen as such, and not by him as a soldier, or in defense solely of his political rights.”
19. * Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846).
“’The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed.’ The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State.”
And the SCOTUS case that led to the Civil War..
Are Negros citizens...Dred Scott
“It would give to persons of the negro race, who are recognized as citizens in any one state of the Union, the right to enter every other state, whenever they pleased.... and it would give them full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might meet; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to KEEP AND CARRY ARMS wherever they went.”
Paragraph 77 in the link below.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0060_0393_ZO.html
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.