Ordaining of laws in favor of one part of the nation to the prejudice and oppression of another is certainly the most erroneous and mistaken policy...An equal dispensation of protection, rights, privileges, and advantages, is what every part is entitled to, and ought to enjoy.
Benjamin Franklin
The Right of The People
Guest Post by Kristian Solem
The Bill of Rights is unique among founding documents. Its ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution limit, each in a specific way, the power of the Federal Government. While all these amendments have been interpreted in various ways by the courts at different times, the Second Amendment is the topic of seemingly endless and often sharp controversy. Gun ownership in the United States is, indeed, an emotionally charged subject.
On July 4, 1776, thirteen years before the ratification of the Constitution and its Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence stated that people are born with certain unalienable rights, among them life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These are “God-given” or “natural” rights and cannot be granted or denied by a government. Our Bill of Rights is the fortress within which these natural rights are guarded.
Leading up to the ratification of the Constitution, there were heated arguments, even at least one fistfight, between two distinct groups among the delegates. The Federalists, in the majority, were satisfied with their document and anxious to see it ratified. But the Anti-Federalists dug in their heels. They feared that, over time, the states would lose their independence under the authority of an ever more powerful central government. Among other things, the Anti-Federalists demanded more protections for the right of the citizens of the independent states to defend themselves, should the need arise, against a Federal Government bent on tyranny.
In the end, the Federalists gave ground. In an agreement known as the Massachusetts Compromise, prominent Anti-Federalists Samuel Adams and John Hancock agreed to ratification on the condition that the convention also vote on proposed amendments limiting the Federal Government’s powers. Thus, the Bill of Rights was born.1
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
This sentence has been parsed and dissected in every manner possible to suit the agendas and beliefs of countless scholars, politicians, jurists, historians, and citizens. But the Framers’ careful choice of five words: “The right of the people,” trumps all other arguments as to the intent of the Second Amendment. These five words are the foundation upon which not just one but several amendments in the Bill of Rights stand.
The First Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The Second Amendment
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
The Fourth Amendment
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The process of creating our Constitution and its Bill of Rights was painstaking. Delegates from the 13 states wrestled over the meaning and intent of each phrase, choosing every word with great care, and so it is no accident that “the right of the people” is spelled out with absolute clarity in several of the amendments. It can only be interpreted that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” is of equal import to “the right of the people peaceably to assemble…” and “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects…”
Many argue that the phrase “A well regulated militia…” serves as a limiting clause to “The right of the people to keep and bear arms,” the idea being that a militia would, much like today’s National Guard, be a force strictly controlled, regulated, by the government. But clearly, the militia described in the Second Amendment is a militia of the people. It is, after all, “the people” who have the right to be armed. This leaves open the possibility that the people could rise up and hold their ground against tyranny, led by a state government or not.
Why, then, are the words “well regulated” even there? A search for the answer to that question begins by examining the usage of those words in the 18th and early 19th centuries.
The Oxford English Dictionary offers us a few examples of how the words “Well-regulated” were used in 1789:
“A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the mayor.”
“The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial.”
“It appeared, to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding.”
From Merriam-Webster’s dictionary, today’s definition, “To bring under the control of law or constituted authority,” is another thing entirely.
Let’s take it a step further.
Were a state to call up a militia, or the people raise one independently, the fighters would be from among the able-bodied men of the state. Such a militia would have to be a properly equipped and capable force composed of well-trained citizen/soldiers. These men would have to be skilled, well regulated in using their weapons. The skills required went far beyond those of a hunter, who might be a fine marksman, but would likely take a casual 45 seconds or more to reload a musket.
A disciplined soldier could perform each of the 10 steps to reload a musket, finishing by aiming and taking the shot in 20 seconds or less. Getting off three well-aimed shots per minute was the measure of a skilled shooter. An expert could make four. Such high skill levels can only be achieved by someone who owns and keeps their gun, is intimately familiar with it, and practices.2
When seen in this light, the two seemingly conflicting clauses of the Second Amendment turn out to be joined at the hip. The first states the mission, and the second guarantees how to accomplish it. “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,” offers a specific definition as to why a state, or its citizens, must be able to raise a militia. The second clause, by its use of those five words, “The right of the people,” is both collective and unconditional. For a militia to be raised, the people must be armed and experts in using these arms.
Lastly, in the late 1700s, city dwellers were a significant minority of the American population. The first census, taken in 1790, counted nearly four million Americans, with only 252,000 living in urban areas (defined as having a population of 2,500 or more). At that time, 3.5 million people lived outside of the cities, where a firearm put food on the table and could be used to defend the family. When the Constitution was ratified, taking away people’s guns was unimaginable except for the imposition of tyranny.
Like all our founding documents, the Second Amendment was written looking to the future. It’s far from an outdated relic. It’s important today as it was in 1790.
Gun Control and the Second Amendment
Gun control began at the state level in the mid-1850s. California Governor Peter H. Burnett was intent on ridding his state of Indians and mobilized a militia to carry out his will. Burnett also saw to it that a bill was passed denying the state’s native residents access to guns, leaving them defenseless against the brutality of his relentless soldiers.
Twelve years later, in the aftermath of the Civil War, several states instituted “Black Codes” out of fear of vengeance from the newly freed slaves. These laws made it illegal for blacks to own weapons of any kind.
American gun control laws are rooted in genocide, racism, and fear. These were state laws. Over the years, states and localities have, for the most part, led the push for unconstitutional gun laws.
Most histories of gun control ignore its unseemly origins, instead beginning when gangsters and crime bosses like Al Capone and Lucky Luciano elevated the use of guns in crime to a new level, incentivizing the Federal Government to get involved. In 1934 the National Firearms Act (NFA) became law. As part of President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s “New Deal on Crime,” the law placed a very steep tax of $200 on gun purchases. The bill was sold to curb gun sales but put gun ownership out of reach for the average American citizen.
Were Roosevelt and Congress so naïve as to think criminals legally got their guns? Were FDR and his political allies inept, or did they intend from the start to prevent average citizens from buying guns?
Over the next few years, the NFA was weakened, in bits and pieces, by courts responding to constitutional problems within the law. But the die was cast. Future gun control laws would follow the precedent set by the NFA. Ignored would be the fact that criminals don’t play by the rules. The consequences of this have been the growth of a healthy black market providing most of the guns used in crimes and the unjust and ineffective punishment of millions of lawful American gun owners.
The question of the hour is this. Are politicians bumbling along, passing stupid and ineffective laws that do little to deter crime because they don’t get it, or is their long game to disarm the general public? We hear talk of “common sense” gun control. But yesterday’s common sense is called reckless tomorrow. Common sense gun control advocates tell us they support the Second Amendment, but actions speak louder than words.
On June 23, 2022, the United States Supreme Court ruled that New York State’s excessively restrictive concealed carry laws were unconstitutional. Kathy Hochul, the un-elected replacement of the disgraced governor of New York, Andrew Cuomo, responded to the decision:
“A week ago, the Supreme Court issued a reckless decision removing century-old limitations on who is allowed to carry concealed weapons in our state — senselessly sending us backward and putting the safety of our residents in jeopardy.”
Days later, in a press conference:
Reporter: “Do you have numbers to show that it’s the concealed carry permit holders that are committing crimes?”
Hochul: “I don’t need to have numbers. I don’t need to have a data point to say this.”
Hochul and her one-party Democrat-run Government went straight to work, passing a package of new concealed carry laws, each intended to be narrow enough in scope to arguably pass muster under the Supreme Court’s ruling but collectively intended to circumvent that ruling.
In their ruling, the court said that New York State’s lawmakers could restrict guns from certain “sensitive places” but warned against applying this label too broadly. The court’s examples of such places included schools, courthouses, and government buildings. In defiance of this warning, New York instituted a lengthy list of more than 20 “sensitive places,” making concealed carry virtually impossible. No matter what you are doing or where you are going, you will unavoidably pass through one or more gun-free zones.
New York’s game here, to do an end run around the law, is a dangerous one. When states defy Supreme Court decisions, we are in uncharted waters.
The Second Amendment Today
I saw a movie once where only the police and the soldiers had guns. It was called Schindler’s List.3
We are constantly being lectured about our “gun problem.” We are told that we are an outlier among civilized nations. The message is that if we would just give up our guns, we would be as good as all those other nations who never had the right to keep and bear arms in the first place, gave up the right under the boot of an authoritarian government, or simply let it slip away with barely a whimper.
Yes, we are an outlier among nations. We have done more to put down tyranny than any other. Our first bout with an oppressive government was our own revolution. We rose up against and defeated an immensely superior British military, thanks to those among us who were passionate about standing up for their rights, willing to die for them, and ferocious at the business of it. We reunited with our former masters, the British, and our future adversaries, the Soviets, and liberated Europe from the thrall of Nazism.
During those very same dark years, we singlehandedly crushed Imperial Japan.
Barely were those bloody wars won when we fought again, keeping the southern half of Korea from falling to communism. Today South Korea is among the most productive societies on Earth. We still keep an army there to ensure their safety from their totalitarian neighbor, North Korea, and its backer, Red China. After WWII, the Soviets–ostensibly our ally–turned against Europe, taking Germany and much of eastern Europe. It was a standoff, but in the end, we dominated the Soviet Union without firing a shot until it collapsed under its own weight.
Today I fear that we are becoming that which we have fought against so valiantly for over 200 years. At a time when much of the world is moving inexorably toward the form of tyranny known as fascism, we must ask ourselves if we still have the passion for liberty that enabled our forebears to win that most unlikely of victories, declaring independence from the mighty British Empire, and winning the fight.
The root meaning of “fascism” is to bind together. We’re all familiar with the word fascia in anatomical terms. It’s Fascial tissue that binds together our bodies. As a political system, it means the binding of government and industry. The industry does the government’s bidding; nationalism replaces individuality, racialism becomes the social construct, and the nuclear family is destroyed with a twist of Marxism.
In the United States today, our most potent industries are entertainment, journalism, the media, education, and health care. The Government and these “Big Five” collude to misinform and censor the people.
We have arrived at the point where speaking freely, going against the narrative, will get you into trouble. Your ability to participate in the town square that social media has become is denied. People are canceled. Jobs are lost, opportunities withheld, and careers ruined. Intellectual freedom at our colleges and universities has become a thing of the past. Those who fail to see what is going on at an accelerating pace aren’t paying attention. One wonders, will they notice when speaking “misinformation” becomes a crime?
The groundwork for this is already being laid. Here is a short quote from a Dept. of Homeland Security National Terrorism Advisory System bulletin:
The United States remains in a heightened threat environment fueled by several factors, including an online environment filled with false or misleading narratives and conspiracy theories, and other forms of mis-dis-and mal-information (MDM) introduced and/or amplified by foreign and domestic threat actors. These threat actors seek to exacerbate societal friction to sow discord and undermine public trust in government institutions to encourage unrest, which could potentially inspire acts of violence.
My god, they even have an acronym for it. MDM. Read the entire document here.
Our biggest creator of family entertainment, Disney, has gone off the rails, increasingly including examples of gender dysphoria in children’s programming, presenting trans sexualism to children not only as normal but commendable. Our schools see it as their role to introduce children as young as kindergartners to the possibilities of gender transition, teaching them to question their sexuality at an age when they’re just learning the alphabet. This is without the parents’ knowledge or consent.
When Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and his state stood up against this insanity, the leftist media saturated the country with the “don’t say gay” narrative. A lie made real by repetition became a mobilizing call for the radical left. A Nazi named Joseph Goebbels defined this tactic.
Can we get a grip on things? I hope so. Or is it already too late? Will we hit a breaking point?
Suppose we do, and the American people take a stand against the government/industrial complex bearing down on us. In that case, we will learn the importance of the Second Amendment and appreciate the foresight of those who drafted it.
But how can a public armed with pistols, rifles, shotguns, and whatever else that can be improvised stand up against the military power of the Federal Government? After all, can’t the military show up with tanks, aircraft, artillery, and fully automatic assault weapons? Yes, they can. But will they? Can a central Government and its media acolytes bent on tyranny prevail in the United States?
There are countless scenarios for such a conflict. All but one, an unarmed nation under the jackboot of tyranny, spell hard times for the oppressor.
For starters, the Army is about 500,000 in size. Roughly half are stationed overseas. One in ten has seen combat. Add in 35,000 Marines, and there are fewer than 550,000 troops. There are 400,000,000 guns in the United States, and 98% are in civilian hands. The average gun owner has five guns. That sets the number of people with guns at about 80,000,000. If one in ten stands up for their rights, that’s 8,000,000 fighters. We could well outnumber the Army by about seven million, and that’s if they bring every last soldier home.
Mano a mano, boots on the ground, the military would face a daunting task. It comes down to whether the Army, Marines, and Air Force bring the big guns to massacre the citizens they are sworn to protect. Would they bring to bear their tanks, jets, and artillery?
In the aftermath of WWII, Nazis brought up before the tribunal at Nuremberg paid dearly for “just obeying orders.” I have far greater regard for, and faith in, our military men and women than I do for the Nazis. Will an order to attack American citizens make it down through the chain of command? Would an Air Force Captain get in an A-10 and rain down hell on countless American citizens? Would a Major crew up a B-52? Would he be able to muster a crew? I, for one, do not believe that these things would happen.
How many in the military would defect, taking up arms with the citizens, standing with their friends and families on the home turf where they grew up?
What about the local police forces? The National Guard? With whom would they stand? These are unknowns.
An administration bent on tyranny would have to consider these things. Who in their military would stand down? How many would defect and fight on the other side? Who, in their inner circles, would bring out the long knives?
A weak, unarmed populace would not be able to draw this line in the sand to force these questions upon a government that would otherwise ignore the Bill of Rights.
“Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it on to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.”
Ronald Reagan
An interesting argument against a bill of rights came from none other than Hamilton himself, expressing the concern that listing certain rights, while others would certainly be left out, would elevate the listed rights to greater importance than those not listed. For example, since the right to self-defense with a firearm was assumed, it was not included in the second amendment as a reason to keep and bear arms.
This is equally true with modern firearms, which present their own set of challenges.
Unattributable, repeatedly seen on the web in various forms and from various sources.
Excellent description of where we find ourselves these days. But you'll have to subtract the soft, spoiled American leftists from the number that would fight back...
Great post!