Talking points to refute left wing lies about the 2nd Amendment

7/17/2025 | Me

[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.

---

TOPICS: AMERICA - The Right Way!!; History; Military/Veterans
KEYWORDS: 2a; 2ndamendment; guns

[GaryCrow]

Why would the government write an amendment to the constitution to give itself the right to keep and bear arms, a power it clearly has already?

The entirety of the Bill of Rights addresses individual rights except, if leftists are to be believed, the second amendment which they maintain is meant for the government. Never mind that goverments don't have rights, they have powers.

Leftists also ignore that the second amendments specifically says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". It does NOT say "the right of the militia", it says the people. The founders weren't retards, if they had meant the militia they'd have said it.

The idea that the second amendment does not guarantee an individual right to keep and bear arms is assinine, someone has to be completely obtuse to even make that argument.

[Political Junkie Too]

The Second Amendment did several things:

1. According to Alexander Hamilton in Federalist #29, "Well Regulated" was meant to be a lesser standard than a "disciplined" standing army.

   The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.

2. It expected "the people at large" to be equipped with the same arms as they would face against a standing army.

   it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist...

3. "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" stood in stark contrast to the old English custom of castle Barons and central armories where the people were called to arms and were given weapons from the castle's armory as needed to defend the castle.

   Where in the name of common-sense, are our fears to end if we may not trust our sons, our brothers, our neighbors, our fellow-citizens? What shadow of danger can there be from men who are daily mingling with the rest of their countrymen and who participate with them in the same feelings, sentiments, habits and interests?

-PJ

[FreedomPoster]

The Letters of Marque and Reprisal section of the Constitution implies that private individuals will have cannon-armed warships.

[riverrunner]

Mc Donald , Heller, and Bruin has all laid this too rest.

[Lee'sGhost]

Penn and Teller...still the best, most concise explanation. (Not an argument. There is no argument.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hx23c84obwQ

[redfreedom]

IMO, leftists that truly believe what the 2A is all about fear it, for it can be used as authority to overthrow their corruptness with blood, bullets and fresh hemp rope.

The last century’s monsters Mao, Stalin and Hitler knew guns in the hands of citizenry was a huge threat to their existence. The same applies to our democrat monsters.

[Hazwaste]

We’ve been arguing the same points since before I was born (mid-20th century). Heller has already resolved the argument.

[sauropod]

Correct!

[Qwapisking]

This morning is the very first time I’ve seen the penn and teller explanation. I like it a lot because it’s sort of how I do it. Have pointed out for literally DECADES that even though a militia is made UP of people, a militia is not THE People. Not sure why the liberal activist hive-mind cannot seem to understand that WE, every single American Citizen, ARE THE PEOPLE, and as such are to be protected, by Statute, FROM the political whims of the few that seek to change the rules of life for political gain, power over the masses and/or taking the personal freedom to think and speak away from The People...at the point of a gun. For all of their railing against the evil “Gun” it’s ironic that the only way the political class can TAKE guns is by EMPLOYING guns. “It takes guns to take guns”.

[MMusson]

The Founding Fathers never envisioned high speed automatic printing presses shooting out hundreds of pages per minute!

Perhaps it’s time for some common sense restrictions on the 1st Amendment?

/S

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

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

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

News should be broadcast with Broad sheets, hand presses and town criers. Religion should be limited to ONLY those churches in the States in 1776.
Same for firearms? I like our modern state of affairs.