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.
As someone who is British and doesn’t live in America, you may wonder why I even care about the 2nd amendment. Well, I am so sick and tired of people attacking it and trying to change it after something like a mass shooting, ignoring any other problem or issue. Here is some of the most common arguments against the 2nd amendment and why they are dead wrong.
“The 2nd amendment was for things like single shot muskets, not assault rifles.”
Wrong. To even accept this argument, you’d have to think that the founding fathers were idiots, never thinking that weapons could become more advanced. Weapons have advanced since the dawn of mankind. So they knew weapons have gotten more advanced and knew that they would continue to do so in the future, but they wrote the amendment anyway because they wanted America to have access to those weapons and protection against anyone who would stop them from doing so. Also, people forget that there was a lot more than just single shot muskets back then. They had Belton Flintlocks, which could fire 20+ rounds with the pull of 1 trigger in roughly 5 seconds. The Girandoni air rifle, which 22 rounds could be fired in 30 seconds. The Puckle gun, an early machine gun that held 6 to 11 shots and pepperbox revolvers which held anything from 5 to 20 shots. And the founding fathers knew these gun existed as they had used them in the Revolutionary War, don’t forget that the founding fathers debated the Constitution endlessly, if they wanted to exclude these guns, they could have but didn’t. Also, the 2nd amendment didn’t just apply to guns, but full on artillery, President James Madison allowed a private ship owner to own cannons in case of piracy, and the founding fathers agreed with it.
“You only hear ‘the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.’ Why do you always forget the part about the militia?”
I doubt they forget as the people who will mostly likely have read the 2nd amendment a lot are gun owners who are required to learn about their 2nd amendment rights if they want to be licenced and they are even given pocket Constitutions on concealed carry and firearms courses . Wouldn’t it stand to reason that they do know the whole amendment and in fact, the entire Constitution then you do? Stop talking to these like they’re idiots because it just makes you look like the dumb one.
“The founding fathers meant to give the right to own guns to the militias, not the people.”
The founding fathers debated this amendment to no end and they carefully put in both clauses, one for the militia and one for the people. If they didn’t want the people to own guns, why did they leave that in? Also, who was the militia in that time? The people. They had just fought a tyrannical government for the past two years and to ensure that there was no more tyranny, they gave the people the right to bare arms to they could protect themselves. Sometimes, those militias rebelled against the government and George Washington had to fight them, what would have been an easy way to stop this from happening? Ban guns. But, Washington knew that this was needed to stop any kind of tyrannical government in the future. Also, some may argue that the militia is now the police, who are armed. Firstly, they did have police back then, not like today but they did have people who would punish you if you broke the law. Second, I think its funny when people say the police should be armed as they are the militia but then say they should be unarmed after a protest by BLM.
“The government was actually giving itself the right to own guns with the 2nd amendment.”
…What? Why would a government need to give itself the right to own anything in a founding document? Wouldn’t this mean that the government also gave itself the right to free speech, not the people?
“Screw the 2nd amendment, that was written in the 18th century, we need new laws.”
So you only wanna get rid of parts of this 18th founding document that you don’t like? Also, because of the way it’s worded, the people given the right to bare arms as part of a well regulated state militia and nothing else, if this was scrapped, it would mean a complete ban on guns. Not a blanket gun ban or banning assault weapons, a complete ban on all weaponry. This would be wildly unpopular and this might be interpreted as government tyranny by the people and many people would defend their guns with their life, possibly leading to an overthrow of that government. People could say that the government could give people the right to own guns to some but the actual right itself would be non-existent. Liberals don’t want people to know this as it would totally destroy their gun-control argument and they’d lose too much support for it to continue.
Please, for the love of god, stop trying to mis-inform America, you filthy hippies.