top of page

The REAL intent of the 2nd Amendment and why the radical left gets it wrong

Updated: May 8, 2022

If you are of the mindset that the radical left and anti 2nd Amendment liberals will ever relent in their efforts to end your natural right to defend yourself. You are sadly mistaken. Over the weekend I noticed that twitter was loaded with anti 2nd Amendment arguments. This argument will never go away so long as there are political parties in the United States who wish to impose their ideologies on the American people and lobby for complete control of the Federal Government.

They use the same platitudes, strawman arguments and gaslighting in every debate that they engage in. But what they never do is read the founding documents of our Republic. They never look at the historical context involving the ratification of the Bill of Rights. And never address why our founding fathers implemented measures to restrict the Federal government from overstepping their delegated authority and limiting natural rights.

They will tell you that the militia was the only entity the founding fathers intended to be armed. Then turn around and tell you that the militia was supposed to be heavily regulated by the Federal Government. They will tell you that times have changed, and semi-automatic weapons did not exist when the 2nd Amendment was ratified. They will tell you that your right to defend yourself is the reason why violence happens in the United States. And blame your guns for what others do. All of which could not be further from the truth.

So, what was the reason of the 2nd Amendment in the first place?

First and foremost, the Revolutionary War. It was citizens of the colonies that banded together leading up to the Revolutionary War to fight the tyranny of King George in the colonies. At the time, they had no standing Army. So, each colony or State had their own state militia. Our founders understood that it would take organized citizens to fight tyrannical governments. And that it was a natural right of the people to alter or abolish governments that oppressed the people. The grass roots foundation of that was the militia.

You can read about the history of the militia in the United States here.

The first full muster of militia in the Colonies took place in Massachusetts in 1636. With the intent of having civilian forces to protect the rights of the people. Natural rights. The Sons of Liberty essentially infiltrated the militia in Massachusetts leading up to the Revolutionary War.

The Sons of Liberty were founded in 1765 by Samuel Adams in response to the growing tyranny of the British Empire. They helped organize things like the Boston Tea Party, Lexington and Concord and Bunker Hill. More notably they were directly involved in the Boston Massacre.

They understood that a standing Army could trample a man's rights just as much as an elected legislature. So, what did the founders have to say about the militia?

  1. “What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.” ~ Thomas Jefferson

  2. “I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials.” ~ George Mason

  3. “A well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained in arms, is the best most natural defense of a free country.” ~ James Madison

  4. “When the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British parliament was advised by an artful man [Sir William Keith], who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people. That it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them. But that they should not do it openly; but to weaken them and let them sink gradually, by totally disusing and neglecting the militia.” ~ George Mason

  5. “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” ~ Thomas Jefferson

  6. “To disarm the people… was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” ~ George Mason

You get the idea by now. The entire intent of the militia according to the founding fathers was to prevent future governments from disarming and oppressing their citizens. Keep in mind that they had just gotten done fighting a tyrannical government that tried to disarm them.

Alexander Hamiliton even discussed the militia in the federalist papers.

The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.” – Alexander Hamilton, the Federalist Papers at 184-188

This idea that a Federally regulated militia was the only intent of the 2nd Amendment is historically wrong. And historical manipulation.

It was the exact intent of the Founding Fathers to ensure the people had the right to a well-maintained militia. And that the people would always have the natural right to be armed. Not for hunting, or self-defense against your neighbor alone. But to ensure that governments knew they answered to the people. Governments that derived their powers through the Consent of the Governed.

Pick up your copy of the Constitution today!

A good historical reference to this would be Col. James Barrett farm in Massachusetts during the Revolutionary War. You can Read about it here.

Col. James Barrett farm served as the storage site for the town of Concords militia. Where they stored weapons, gun powder and cannons. That is right the militia owned cannons. So, this idea that the 2nd Amendment only applies to muskets, comes from a point of ignorance. Col. Barrett himself served as the Colonel of the Concord Militia. Lexington and Concord are widely recognized as the start of the Revolutionary War. It is still unsure who fired first.

Why does it correlate to the 2nd Amendment? On the morning of April 17th, 1775, British regulars under the orders of General Thomas Gage, marched on the town of Concord in order to seize the cannons and raid the arsenal at the farm. They met resistance in both Lexington and Concord and were never able to find the arsenal. Which was hidden in a nearby field.

This is the exact context of the 2nd Amendment that the founders intended to prevent. To stop governments from carrying out raids on American citizens to seize their weapons. This is also where the 4th Amendment stemmed from. Illegal searches and seizures. Without probable cause and a warrant.

Alot of anti-gun advocates will tell you that the 2nd Amendment is open to interpretation. Because the founders never believed that everyone had the natural right to be armed. Wrong. They quite literally state that the right to keep and bear arms is a natural right to prevent government tyranny. They understood this because of what took place during the Revolutionary War. You cannot argue with the words that came out of the mouths of the Founders Directly. Although they like to. The 2nd Amendment is not open to interpretation. It has historical context and references behind it.

They like to tell you that the founders intended the militia and gun ownership to be well regulated. By implying that it was intended to be well restricted. Which is also wrong.

Well-regulated in context of the 2nd Amendment simply means well organized. The right of the people to have a well-organized militia. Not government restricted and organized. Well maintained by the people. And well-armed.

This idea that the Federal Government has the right to regulate the militia is Unconstitutional at best.

Article 1 Section 8 Clause 12 of the United States only grants Congress the authority to raise and support Armies and fund them for no longer than 2 years. However, they can indeed pass fiscal budgets every year to ensure the security of the Nation as discussed in the Federalist Papers.

But Congress has 0 Authority under Article 1 to regulate the militia.

Article 1 Section 8 Clause 15/16. Congress only has the authority to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions. Which is up to the discretion of the Militia in each State. Congress can only provide the necessary tools to calling the Militia into action as outlined in Federalist 29. Yet, they hold no power over the militia. Their whole authority is to help fund, arm, organize for the portions of the Militia that would be employed in service of the United States. Reserving appointment of officers and the AUTHORTITY of training the militia to the States.

The National Guard is not the Militia. Which is also discussed in the Federalist papers. The only authority for a federal military comes from Article 1 Section 8 Clause 12. The militia is a separate entity to be maintained by the States and people. The federal government was never delegated the authority over the militia. Their role is simply to help fund them and train them should they be called into service.

Keep in mind that the Militia is also intended to ensure State sovereignty should the Federal government ever utilize its military against the American people. It is then the duty of the Militia to be called into service and prevent tyrannical governments from utilizing the military against American citizens.

A good historical reference to use would be the Whiskey Rebellion. Which you can read about here.

George Washington did use the militia during the Whiskey Rebellion. However, it was in a manner prescribed by the Constitution. And within the confines of the Militia Act of 1792.

The National Guard itself was not established as a federal entity until 1903. With the passing of the Militia Act of 1903. Which was passed in an unconstitutional nature. The 2nd Amendment was ratified on December 15, 1791. Making it supreme law of the land under Article 5 of the United States Constitution. The only way to alter or abolish the 2nd Amendment is under the process outlined in Article 5 of the U.S Constitution.

The only way to propose and ratify Amendments to the Constitution, are 2/3 approval of both the House and Senate. Which must then be sent to the States for 3/4 ratification. Requiring each State legislature to approve the Amendment with 2/3 in the State House and Senate. When was the last time that an Amendment was properly ratified as outlined in Article 5? Congress simply proposes Acts and do whatever they want without consequence.

In order to alter the 2nd Amendment, it has to be amended itself.

The federalist papers make it clear that well-regulated means well maintained. Not restricted. Of course, a civilian wouldn't understand what that means. However, a well-organized militia is the right of the people, as is gun ownership for those who do not serve in the militia. This is also mentioned in the Anti-Federalist debates which included men like Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams, and James Monroe.

This idea that the 2nd Amendment was only intended for a regulated militia controlled by the Federal Government, comes from a place of ignorance and echo chambers. Historically inaccurate accounts of what the founders intended.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state."

Meaning a well maintained and well organized militia being necessary to ensure the protection of the state of freedom in our Republic. Not the States themselves, but being necessary for the security of a FREE state.

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Shall not be infringed. In any way shape or form. Any gun legislation in existence, is unconstitutional at best. Being that Article 5 of the Constitution requires proper ratification to amend the Constitution. Congress has no authority to pass laws restricting gun ownership in any way, unless properly ratified by 3/4 of the States in the Union.

If you want to make strawman arguments and gaslight your way into restricting natural rights. It seems that you have the tools to propose such amendments. Article 5. Anti-gun advocates, however, will never attempt to restrict gun ownership in the manner the Constitution outlines. Because 3/4 of the States will never allow it to happen. Which is why they speak in platitudes and echo chambers. This has nothing to do with gun violence. This has to do with disarming the American people in order to take full control of the Federal Government. This is about preventing access to natural rights. And it is NOT open to interpretation. The Constitution is cut and dry on this. The 2nd Amendment was ratified. In order to alter the 2nd Amendment, it must be amended itself under Article 5 of the United States Constitution. Article 6 making it SUPREME LAW of the United States.

But they would have you believe that our founders were of the mindset that militias and weapons should be heavy regulated by the government. If that mentality played out during the Revolutionary War, we would still belong to Great Britain. Imagine the Sons of Liberty telling their men "We know that King George is a tyrant but, you are not allowed to form a militia or own weapons. Only King George and his military can arm themselves to fight themselves because they're oppressing everyone but themselves." It would make sense to state that our Founders believed that the only people allowed to fight against tyranny were the tyrants. Sounds like a logical argument.

Pick up your copy of the Constitution today!

Make sure to like and follow on all social media platforms!

-The Patriot Edda-

Follow on Facebook

Follow on Twitter

Follow on YouTube

Follow on Rumble

Follow on Instagram

Follow on Spotify

38 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All


bottom of page