"...We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,
laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness..."
This is a very powerful statement. When you break it down and study the implications, you begin to understand the thoughts of the founders of this country and what they intended.
The Government is the servant of The People.
The Government is not the source of power but only The People's designated executor thereof.
The Government, when not serving the will of The People may be changed, limited, empowered, or even abolished by The People.
The People, therefore, must have the means to accomplish this monumental task should it become necessary.
There must be a peaceful way - within the structure of law.
There must be a forceful way - By means of armed struggle.
One must consider the implications of these presuppositions when interpreting the Constitution and it's amendments.
The First Amendment protects speech from censorship and retribution. This is necessary for the peaceful lawful management of our government. Without a way to voice our opinions, concerns, wants, needs, etc. how would the government be able to derive "their just powers from the consent of the governed?"
The Second Amendment guarantees The People the ability to exercise their will upon the government by force of arms. It is VERY clear.
“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 is no room for misinterpretation with this wording. SHALL NOT means the same thing in the second amendment that it does in the 10 Commandments. It is not subject to the wants of the State, it's Civil Servants, or members of it's military. This was added to be clear about what the government was allowed to and not allowed to do. It was not intended to limit the rights of the people, but rather to protect them from overreach from the government. While all the other activities that go along with firearm use and ownership are important, this check on the power of the State is the overriding purpose of the Second Amendment.
Without these first two protections, all the rest of them are meaningless.
What happens when a populace is disarmed by the government?
Ottoman Empire (Turkey) and the Armenian Genocide (1915–1917)
Disarmament: In 1911, the Ottoman government implemented strict gun control laws, prohibiting Armenians and other non-Muslims from possessing firearms without special permission, which was rarely granted. During World War I, as tensions rose, the government intensified efforts to confiscate weapons from Armenian communities, often using accusations of rebellion to justify searches and seizures.
Atrocities: Between 1915 and 1917, the Ottoman government orchestrated the Armenian Genocide, involving mass deportations, forced marches, and killings. Approximately 1.5 million Armenians (out of a population of about 2.5 million) were killed through massacres, starvation, and exposure. The disarmament of Armenians left them largely defenseless against state-organized violence, including attacks by "Butcher Battalions" composed of released convicts.
Nazi Germany and the Holocaust (1933–1945)
Disarmament: In 1931, the Weimar Republic required firearm registration due to political instability. After Adolf Hitler’s Nazi Party seized power in 1933, they used these records to disarm political opponents, including Social Democrats, and later targeted Jews. In 1938, a decree banned Jews from possessing firearms, with severe penalties like 20 years in a concentration camp for violations. This followed Kristallnacht, a state-sponsored pogrom against Jewish communities.
Atrocities: The Nazis implemented the Holocaust, resulting in the murder of approximately 6 million Jews, along with millions of others, including Romani people, disabled individuals, and political dissidents, through concentration camps, mass shootings, and gas chambers. The systematic disarmament of Jews and other "enemies of the state" left them vulnerable to deportation and extermination.
Soviet Union under Stalin (1929–1953)
Disarmament: In 1929, the Soviet government banned private firearm ownership, consolidating control under Joseph Stalin’s regime. This followed earlier policies allowing limited gun ownership under Lenin. The ban coincided with Stalin’s purges and collectivization campaigns, targeting perceived threats like kulaks (wealthy peasants).
Atrocities: Stalin’s regime is estimated to have killed 20 million people through purges, forced labor camps (Gulags), engineered famines (e.g., the Holodomor in Ukraine, 1932–1933, killing 3–7 million), and executions. Dissidents, ethnic minorities, and political opponents were systematically targeted.
China under Mao Zedong (1935–1976)
Disarmament: In 1935, the Chinese Communist Party began restricting private gun ownership as part of consolidating control during the Chinese Civil War and later the establishment of the People’s Republic of China in 1949. By the 1950s, civilian firearm possession was heavily regulated or banned.
Atrocities: Mao’s policies, including the Great Leap Forward (1958–1962) and the Cultural Revolution (1966–1976), led to an estimated 20–40 million deaths from famine, executions, and purges. Political opponents, intellectuals, and ethnic groups were targeted, with millions sent to labor camps or killed.
Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge (1975–1979)
Disarmament: The Khmer Rouge, upon taking power in 1975, confiscated weapons from civilians as they sought to create a classless agrarian society. This was part of their radical restructuring of Cambodian society, targeting urban populations and perceived enemies.
Atrocities: The Khmer Rouge killed an estimated 1–2 million people (out of a population of 7–8 million) through executions, forced labor, starvation, and torture. Intellectuals, professionals, and ethnic minorities were systematically eliminated in the "Killing Fields."
Uganda under Idi Amin (1971–1979)
Disarmament: In 1970, Uganda passed a law restricting firearm ownership, requiring licenses and regulating weapon types. When Idi Amin seized power in 1971, he enforced these restrictions selectively, disarming ethnic groups and political opponents while arming loyalists.
Atrocities: Amin’s regime killed an estimated 300,000 people, primarily Christians and ethnic groups like the Acholi and Lango, through massacres and purges. Political opponents were targeted, and state security forces operated with impunity.
Rwanda and the Genocide (1994)
Disarmament: In the lead-up to the 1994 genocide, the Rwandan government, dominated by the Hutu majority, restricted access to firearms for the Tutsi minority and political opponents. While Rwanda had no widespread gun culture, the state ensured that Tutsis and moderate Hutus had limited access to weapons, while Hutu militias (Interahamwe) were armed.
Atrocities: The Rwandan Genocide saw approximately 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus killed in 100 days, primarily with machetes, though firearms were used by militias and government forces. The lack of access to weapons left Tutsis unable to mount significant resistance.
If the people of these countries had not been disarmed, then they would have, at the very least, had a fighting chance to avoid genocide and atrocities. What are the odds that the government of the United States could do any of these kinds of things without major consequences in the form of civil war, insurrection, revolution, etc.? The odds right now are practically Zero. This could all change if we give up our right to "keep and bear arms." It MUST be defended. Without the ability to resist the government forcefully, the ability to resist it peacefully is dependent upon the goodwill of said government. There would be nothing to stop the government from trampling our rights. There would be no meaning to "consent of the governed" anymore.
"...A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..."
What is this Militia? Who is in it?
Militia Act of 1792: This law, passed shortly after the Constitution’s ratification, defined the militia as “each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years.” This reflects the Founders’ view that the militia encompassed most adult male citizens, excluding certain groups like women, non-whites, and those physically unfit, due to the era’s social norms.
In Federalist No. 46, Madison describes the militia as “the people themselves,” armed and ready to resist tyranny, contrasting it with a professional army.
In Federalist No. 29, Hamilton emphasizes a “well-regulated” militia, implying some organization but still rooted in the broader citizenry.
Many state constitutions, like Virginia’s, tied militia service to the right to bear arms, emphasizing that citizens formed the militia. George Mason, a key figure in Virginia’s ratifying convention, stated, “I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.”
Well Regulated
Citizens were not reliant on government-supplied arms, but rather were in possession of their own, self bought, equipment and prepared to use it.
Did not mean state-controlled but rather citizen-led and locally organized, as seen in the minutemen’s rapid response at Lexington and Concord.
Implied that militia members were trained in basic military skills—handling firearms, marching in formation, and responding to commands. This is evident in colonial muster days, where men practiced drills to ensure readiness, as described in historical accounts of New England militias. (If you examine the recent actions the government has taken against groups identified as militias, there can be little doubt that the Government not approve of this aspect. I think it is a great idea.)
As you can see, the people who wrote the documents and ratified them considered every adult (male) citizen capable of handling a firearm to be a part of the militia. This is NOT the same as the national guard. It is not an organized standing military force. It is the population itself. Thus, we have a duty, that has been handed down to us from the very beginning of this country, to keep and bear arms individually to ensure the security of our FREE state.
I don't say this lightly. This is not me looking for an excuse to have and carry guns. This is the reality of our situation. If we don't do this, then our FREE state is not secure.
Therefore, I call on all able-bodied adult citizens to acquire, maintain, and train with firearms individually. Become familiar with them and teach your children, your family, and your community about them. Call out the bootlicking supporters of tyranny for what they are and expose their ignorance and agenda. Do these things to protect our future, because if you don't, then the State run propaganda organizations masquerading as the news and the State run indoctrination centers pretending to be schools will shape the minds of these people instead. The death of a thousand cuts was started decades ago and will continue until everyone will willingly give up their rights in the name of Security and Safety. This promise of security and safety is an empty one. If you want complete security, then try living in a prison, because that is what this country will become.
“Those who would give up essential Liberty,
to purchase a little temporary Safety,
deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”
--Benjamin Franklin
the Pennsylvania Assembly in its "Reply to the Governor", 11 November 1755