Followup to earlier piece on the Second Amendment

If the Second Amendment to our Constitution had been written to protect hunters, collectors and the occasional home owner from a burglar then those who oppose the ownership of assault rifles and large bore rifles would have legitimate grounds for their positions. Unfortunately for them, that is not why the Second Amendment was written and approved.


Before anyone unfamiliar with American history, both pre- and immediately post Revolutionary jumps any conclusion concerning my sanity, my patriotism or any possibility that I am a paid employee of the firearms industry I suggest that they take up their own study of history. I suggest this because I am absolutely certain that the vast majority of Americans are not aware that the right to keep and bear arms was guaranteed for one very simple reason. That reason was, and according to the Constitution; and ignoring laws passed during and after the Civil War, that such firearms ownership would guarantee that the citizenry of a state or the country as a whole would have the weaponry needed arms to overthrow a government that they felt had become tyrannical.


Put simply, the government gave us weapons so that, if and when we felt that there was no other alternative, we could use those weapons to topple that government. This was a truly revolutionary act by the former armed revolutionaries, guerilla fighters and terrorists who constituted our first government.


It is for this reason that Americans today, just as Americans in 1785, have the right, the responsibility even, of possessing firearms equal to those used by the police and military forces of our country. The smooth bore and rifled muskets held by the citizenry then were, at the very least, equal or superior to the firearms issued to our military forces. The “coach guns” of that era are roughly equivalent to automatic assault rifles and sub-machineguns today, and nearly all of those were in private hands. The four, six and eight gauge fowling pieces used by duck and goose hunters of that era could also serve as individually manned small bore artillery.


It was the comfortable, conservative grandsons and great-grandsons of those revolutionaries who, faced with the threat to their positions brought about by the Civil War, decided that stability was far more important than the revolutionary ideals upon which this country was founded. It was they who pushed for and had passed laws that made it a crime punishable by death to advocate that any state secede from the Union. It was they who started to change our history. It was they, frightened by the challenge the Confederacy represented to the status quo, who determined that no such challenge in any manner be allowed.


About paganveteran

National Coordinator of the Pagan Veterans Headstone Campaign and current National Commander, Pagan Veterans of the United States of America. Author, writer, poet, speaker and general disturber of the peace.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Followup to earlier piece on the Second Amendment

  1. Connie says:

    Very true Charles, I know what you’re saying and my previous comment was only meant to add to the discussion. The importance of self defence, as a modern aspect of this amendment, should not be discounted. One of the reasons humans band together and form civilizations is the protection offered by forming a larger whole. We create governments to work for us, and basically, to protect us, protect our way of life – our life, liberty, and all that good stuff. True, our 2nd amendment was meant as a deterrent against those we gave the power, to keep them from using that power against us. What’s hurting us today is that our rights, are restricted, we must do what we are told – and we are told to sit tight and let the authorities handle things – or else – even if the protection we are promised never comes. In an honest modern interpretation, our right to defend ourselves and property should be seen as a – not just an outright ‘right to topple’ the government, but the right to challenge their authority – in other words, if they won’t do the job we hired them to do, then we have the RIGHT to do it ourselves. A government that is ineffective against that which causes us harm – and that dictates we do nothing but allow the harm to happen – is just as bad than a government that causes the harm directly. I’m not advocating vigilantes – nor am I bashing any man or woman in uniform who works to protect us, either on the streets of the US, or military camps overseas – but I bash the laws that allow crime to pay, and criminals to have more rights than law-abiding citizens.
    So yes – this amendment was written to protect us from government abuse, neglect should be interpreted as abuse, but of course, as you so rightly point out, the anti-boat rockers, comfortable with the status quo, have crippled this right’s ability to afford such protection.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s