Discover more from Kevin McKenzie
Guns Are Weapons of War
And that's why the Second Amendment guarantees your right to own them
The new political buzzword for progressives in their quest to abolish our right to own guns in the United States is to refer to them as “weapons of war.”
The Second Amendment, of course, is actually very clear, despite the fact that the left has been trying to obfuscate its obvious meaning and intention for decades.
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.
There’s nothing at all vague about “shall not be infringed,” but they keep trying out new arguments to disarm the populace. Their argument used to be that the right to keep and bear arms was conditional on the necessity of a “well regulated Militia,” which we no longer have in the United States, thus rendering the Second Amendment null and void. I’ve pointed out why this interpretation is wrong previously, which is that they’ve reversed the logic of the amendment. The Second Amendment actually guarantees two rights, the right to keep and bear arms and the right to form a militia, and it is the right to form a militia that is dependent on the people’s right to keep and bear arms, which shall not be infringed, not the other way around. The fact that we don’t form militias any longer, weirdos around the country notwithstanding, does not void the right to keep and bear arms, or even prove that the right to form a militia no longer exists. The idea of quartering soldiers in this day and age would make no sense either, but that doesn’t render the Third Amendment null and void.
Since, as I’ve established, the Second Amendment guarantees the right of the people to form militias, then the purpose of the Second Amendment is explicitly to guarantee the right of the people to bear “weapons of war.” The purpose of a militia is to fight wars. They were, historically in the United States, the first line of defense in the case of the outbreak of war, and therefore the people would need to be armed with weapons of war. This was true when the amendment was drafted and “weapons of war” referred to powder and musket, and, as the amendment has not been repealed, it remains true today when weapons of war refers to whatever it takes to wage war. To argue anything else would be to accept logic that would also mean that the guarantee of the freedom of speech, for example, does not apply to the Internet as the Internet did not exist when the First Amendment was ratified.
The fact that they knowingly keep trying to convince us that the plain meaning of the Second Amendment is the opposite of what it says proves that we’re dealing with dishonest actors. You can honestly believe that disarming American citizens is the best, maybe even the only, way to stop mass-shootings and bring down violent crime in this country, but you’d have to admit that what you want to do is unconstitutional. You would have to acknowledge that the Second Amendment guarantees the right of people to keep and bear arms, and that the only way you can get what you want, legally, is to repeal the Second Amendment with a new amendment. That, however, is too difficult, and would not be supported by the majority of Americans, so the people who claim to believe that democracy is sacred try to subvert the will of the people by making up lies to get what they want. And if these people are willing to lie to get what they want, then its a fairly good indication that they’re willing to lie about why they want it in the first place. Do they really want to disarm us for our safety, or for their safety to acquire more power over us?