You are here:  Home  >  Opinion  >  Current Article

The Shootout Over Gun Rights: Part 2

By   /   February 9, 2013  /   7 Comments

    Print       Email

Machine-Gun-Lady-384“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.”

- Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.


To use an oxymoron, the “anti-gun intellectuals” tell us that the “well regulated militia” clause in the Second Amendment refers to the National Guard, and does not guarantee an individuals right to be armed. Here’s what the authors of the Second Amendment had to say:


“I ask, sir, what is the militia?” Answer: “It is the whole of the people, except for a few public officials.” – George Mason, co-author of the Second Amendment, during the debate to ratify the Constitution.


“A well regulated militia, composed of the Gentlemen, Free holders, and other free men was necessary to protect our ancient laws and liberties from the standing army. – George Mason


“To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”

- George Mason


“Americans have the right and advantage of being armed – unlike citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”

- James Madison, Father of the Second Amendment.


“The militia is composed of free citizens” – Samuel Adams, defining the militia.


What about the “well regulated” statement? Gun grabbers claim that this is Constitutional authority to regulate firearms. Here is what it really means: President George Washington implored the first congress to pass an act requiring every able bodied American male to own a firearm to form the basis of a citizens militia. Washington also wanted them to be disciplined and trained in the use of arms. “Well regulated” means the citizen army is to be well trained and disciplined.


“A free people ought not only be armed, but disciplined.”

- George Washington


The Militia Act of 1792, formed a citizen army apart from regular federal troops. The “well regulated Militia” clause provided congress the constitutional authority to form such a militia. It’s intent was to provide a huge military reserve force to back up the poorly trained and equipped federal army if necessary, and to insure that the civilian population was armed and trained to preserve their freedom.


The act called for able bodied males between the ages of 18 and 45 to be enrolled in the militia. Militiamen were required to arm themselves with a rifle or musket, bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a cartridge box with 24 round balls, a powder horn and 1/4 pound of gunpowder, and a knapsack. Militiamen were required to report for training twice a year. Requiring private citizens to arm themselves was an extremely cost effective way of maintaining a military reserve.


George Masons’ recommendations for arming the militia asked for even more firepower. “Keep a good fire-lock in proper order & furnish ourselves as soon as possible with, and always keep by us, one pound of gunpowder, four pounds of lead, a pair of bullet moulds, one dozen gun flints, a cartridge box, or powder horn, and bag for balls.”


If the militia act of 1792, were in force today, we would perhaps be required to arm ourselves with a semi-automatic rifle in a military caliber, with large capacity magazines, and at least 300 rounds of ammo in stripper clips, but the government doesn’t trust us with guns anymore.


The Militia Act of 1792, was replaced by the Militia act of 1903, where the National Guard became the primary military reserve. There’s a huge difference between the Militia act of 1792, and the formation of the National Guard. Militiamen were required to keep arms at all times. Guardsmen can only be armed with permission from the governor of the state, or the U.S. President. The Founders would have considered the National Guard as part of a standing federal army.


A grave concern of the Founders was the misuse of federal troops against the people:


“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. – Noah Webster, in advocating that Pennsylvania ratify the Constitution.


It is always dangerous to the liberties of the people to have an army stationed among them, over which they have no control. The militia is composed of free citizens.” – Samuel Adams, concerned about the possible misuse of federal troops, and defining the militia.


James Madison, was concerned yet confident that “a militia amounting to a half a million men” would prevent a federal army from seizing power and authority over the people.


Does any of this suggest that the Second Amendment was drafted to protect our right to hunt ducks?


The Second Amendment and the Militia Act were inspired by the Swiss militia. In Switzerland, the defense of the country is predominately in the hands of the civilian militia. It has kept them free for 700 years. Every Swiss male is required to own and maintain a fully automatic rifle and ammunition at his home. The rifle is provided free of charge by the Swiss government. Shooting competitions are the National sport. Switzerland has one of the lowest crime rates in the world.


Shortly before World War 1, a German general asked a Swiss militiamen what his country would do if Germany invaded Switzerland. He replied, “We would each fire one shot, and then go home.” Israel has a similar civilian militia that has kept them free despite being surrounded by enemies.


The Remington Arms Company, advertised that they armed the worlds largest civilian army by selling 5 million Model 700 bolt action hunting rifles. The National Rifle Association has over 4 million members and is quickly growing to 5 million. Much to the chagrin of gun grabbing lib’s, 250,000 new members joined the NRA after Sandy Hook. That wasn’t supposed to happen. The NRA was supposed to be thoroughly discredited. Americans own over 270 million firearms, soon to be 300,000 million, enough to arm 100 percent of the population. There’s no doubt our Founding Fathers would approve.


The NRA was founded in 1871 by Col. William Church and General George Wingate. Dissatisfied with the marksmanship prowess of federal troops, they formed the National Rifle Association to teach gun safety and marksmanship to civilians in hopes that they might be able to hit something when called into service.


To this day, the NRA is the premier organization for the training of law enforcement officers, gun safety and marksmanship. In 1975, the NRA formed the Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) to lobby for the protection of the Second Amendment. The Founding Fathers would approve.


Next: Who needs an assault rifle? Can we trust our government? What weapons are Constitutionally protected? Where’s the bottom line for gun grabbers? Dial 911 and die! Solutions for reducing tragedies like Sandy Hook. Taking freedom for granted.





Incoming search terms:

  • hunter with machine gun
  • lady with gun
  • bear with machine gun
  • gun lady
  • lady and gun
  • sign about neighbors not owning guns
    Print       Email


  1. Terry Elam Terry Elam says:

    So which one of you are able to take on the military? It’s a snowball effect, sort of like putting weapons in the schools. We get one, they get two, we get one more, they get two more. Protect our liberties, please. More bs.

  2. Thanks Ron for writing and publishing this article. Every American should read it.

  3. Mike Hawkins Mike Hawkins says:

    This was one of those unsolicited emails I get. I don’t know who to thank for it and as I don’t know it’s origin I will not claim that it is even true. Nonetheless I found it, um… interesting… to say the least! Perhaps Terry will too or maybe you’ve all seen it before.

    Vermont State Rep. Fred Maslack has read the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as well as Vermont’s own Constitution very carefully, and his strict interpretation of these documents is popping some eyeballs in New England and elsewhere.

    Maslack recently proposed a bill to register “non-gun-owners” and require them to pay a $500 fee to the state. Thus Vermont would become the first state to require a permit for the luxury of going about unarmed and assess a fee of $500 for the privilege of not owning a gun. Maslack read the “militia” phrase of the Second Amendment as not only the right of the individual citizen to bear arms, but as ‘a clear mandate to do so’.

    He believes that universal gun ownership was advocated by the Framers of the Constitution as an antidote to a “monopoly of force” by the government as well as criminals. Vermont’s constitution states explicitly that “the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State” and those persons who are “conscientiously scrupulous of bearing arms” shall be required to “pay such equivalent..”

    Clearly, says Maslack, Vermonters have a constitutional obligation to arm themselves, so that they are capable of responding to “any situation that may arise.”

    Under the bill, adults who choose not to own a firearm would be required to register their name, address, Social Security Number, and driver’s license number with the state. “There is a legitimate government interest in knowing who is not prepared to defend the state should they be asked to do so,” Maslack says.

    Vermont already boasts a high rate of gun ownership along with the least restrictive laws of any state …. it’s currently the only state that allows a citizen to carry a concealed firearm without a permit. This combination of plenty of guns and few laws regulating them has resulted in a crime rate that is the third lowest in the nation.

    ” America is at that awkward stage. It’s too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards.”
    This makes sense! There is no reason why gun owners should have to pay taxes to support police protection for people not wanting to own guns.

    Let them contribute their fair share and pay their own way. Sounds reasonable to me! Non-gun owners require more police to protect them and this fee should go to paying for their defense!


  4. Mike Hawkins Mike Hawkins says:

    Thank you Mr. Brault:
    Terrific articles, as usual! May I quote from them?

    The debate over the second amendment is heating up and the battle to preserve our right to bear arms will be long and difficult. I regard this latest attack on our Constitution to be opportunistic and subversive. Patriotic Americans will need to be united.

  5. Terry Elam Terry Elam says:

    Forced ownership or forced abandonment are not too far apart in scope. I presently own no guns because there are no rogue bands of home invaders and rapists in my neighborhood. The government is not crashing in my door on some obscure quest to enslave me. If they did, a gun would not be of any use, just like a gun would not have stopped the tragedy at Sandy hook.
    I find it somewhat sick in the wake of such a tragedy that all your concerns are about someone taking your ball away so you can no longer play Rambo. (Rambo has probably jumped a cliff in Big Bear.) The only solution you have is more guns.
    I just can’t take you seriously. It’s hard to take this post seriously with all the half quotes supposedly channeling our fore fathers.

  6. Dan OBrien Dan OBrien says:

    Terry tells us, I presently own no guns because there are no rogue bands of home invaders and rapists in my neighborhood.

    Terry I respect your right not to have a firearm. I think it is important that everyone know just how you feel about not exercising your right to Bear Arms.

    We should all express our support of your decision.

    Out of respect for his belief we have sent his neighbors the following posters to be placed in their windows.

    Ain’t America a Wonderful Country?

Social Media Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com
UA-9539515-1 e0a5d0bb00574423a5afb96d6b854248