Home / Assault Weapons and the Second Amendment

Assault Weapons and the Second Amendment

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

The Second Amendment to the US Constitution states: 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.

Today, the US Senate reauthorized the ban on assault weapons by a 52-47 vote. I read about their vote, and my gut instinct was to somehow think that this denied my rights under the United States Constitution. So, I went and re-read the 2nd amendment, and I’m convinced now how silly the NRA’s rabid support for assault weapons is.

I mean, come on, did the framers really have assault weapons in mind? No, more than likely they were protecting the right of ever American citizen, except women and negroes of course, to own a flint-lock muzzle-loader and a black-powder revolver. Not only that, but the emphasis of the amendment is clearly on the regulation of a militia, which means that it was necessary for citizens to have guns because they might be called upon to join a state militia that would not provide them with a gun.

Now, I used to be a card-carrying member of the NRA. My daddy taught me how to shoot when I was about 8 years old, and I must say that I’m a pretty good shot. But I know some folks that have this frightening fetish for firearms. What really, I ask, are they trying to compensate for? Not only that, but most of those types would be the last you’d want fighting in a militia to protect your homestead. They’re fat, tail-gate bubba types that break a sweat walking up the courthouse steps to apply for their hunting license.

I’m not against owning firearms, though. So here’s my solution: I think every United States citizen should have the right to TWO handguns (one for each hip), ONE shotgun, and ONE rifle…that’s it.

And by the way, I’m going to start a lobbying group soon to protect and defend our Constitutional Rights as stated in the 3rd Amendment: “No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.”

That’s right. Ain’t nobody gonna quarter troops in my house. I mean, come on, first they want to take away our cop-killer bullets and automatic assault rifles…next thing they’ll be wanting me to cook, clean for and house some Marine. I ain’t gonna do it I tell ya. I know my rights. If you are interested in joining The National Association Against Quartering Troops–“The NAAQT,” then email me today!!!

Powered by

About Ben C.

  • muzzle-loader’s don’t kill people…people kill people.

  • mike

    I enjoyed your post, but I wouldn’t be so quick to laugh about the Third Amendment. If there’s another terrorist attack, martial law will be declared, predicts Tommy Franks. In that case, the issue of the quartering of troops will be a real one.

    The Third Amendment was designed not only to prevent troops from taking over your house, but also to stop them from taking up residence in the town square, as the British were fond of doing during colonial times.

  • Tom

    Nice, well, thought out post. But why should I be limited to how many guns I can own? If I want to own 2000 guns, I should be allowed to. I can own more than one car, house, cat, dog, or anything, why should that be different.

    It looks like by pushing through an amendment for banning “assault weapons”, they doomed the entire bill.

    And as far as assault weapons goes, most of it doesn’t have anything to do with how leathal guns are, but how lethal they look.

    Most Olympic target pistols, even .22 calibre are banned because they have the magazine in front of the trigger, which according to the assault weapons ban is a no no

  • “If I want to own 2000 guns, I should be allowed to. I can own more than one car, house, cat, dog, or anything, why should that be different.”

    I would have no objection to your owning 2000 cats, but guns are different.

  • Chris Morton

    If the 2nd Amendment only protects the right to own muzzle loading weapons, does that mean the the 1st only protects the right to publish broadsheets on lead type?

    If you want to see what REAL gun control is all about, look at Chicago. Registration isn’t a problem? Then find out what it would take to register a new handgun in the city of the voting dead. After that, go to “gun court” and count the number of White defendents you see there.

    Gun control isn’t about guns. It’s about control, usually of despised racial, ethnic and religious minorities. Look at a group photo of the Branch Davidians and you’ll see why they got picked by the BATF… the agency that posted “nigger hunting licenses” in its Oklahoma City offices, and which had to pull some of its own agents from the church arson investigation because they attended a Whites only jamboree organized out of BATF offices, on government time, at taxpayer expense. It’s no coincidence that the Gun Control Act of 1968 was modeled after a Nazi gun control law. It’s the nature of the beast.

  • jedasm

    What the Constitution says is that the Militia, that is…the People…are to have a weapon equivalent to those carried by the military…this is so that the government could resupply the Militia quickly with the necessary ammunition in time of need.