A Brief History of the Second Amendment and Why Nearly Everyone Gets It Wrong

Let's first begin with some generalizations. The rights enshrined in the Constitution of the United States - all of them - are not and never were intended to be granted by governmental officials. Quite to the contrary, those rights were and should forever be acknowledged as God given or natural born rights which the founders of this great nation enumerated in this great document precisely to protect them for the citizens against the tyrannical overreach of an authoritarian government, the likes of which they were all too familiar with having left the Old World to escape them.

Take for example the very first amendment to the Bill of Rights, which not only protects one's ability to speak freely, but also the ability to gather and practice religion as people see fit. This right, to be guarded against government intrusion, stems directly from the Puritans who chose to leave the totalitarian monarchies that forbade both certain speech and certain religious practices, in order to establish a new, less regulated community across the Atlantic.

Predictably, over time the British empire sought to impose upon American colonists the same overbearing rule of unjust laws that these colonists had originally fled. This was particularly true after the French and Indian War, when Britain insisted that American colonists house and care for the British military left behind, interrupting severely every man's God given right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, as would later be articulated in America's Declaration of Independence. This was also later rectified by the inclusion of the third amendment to the Bill of Rights.

Another point of contention was the authority of the British to search and seize any and all property they deemed fit, from any colonists, absent any necessary cause. Again, this injustice of the natural right to be safe in one's belongings was later introduced as the fourth amendment to the Bill of Rights, not for any government to grant or restrict, but to legally bind said government from any attempt to curtail yet another easily distuingishable and inalienable right granted to man by his very existence.

While all of the aforementioned rights of every individual have been slowly eroded over time by the same overbearing federal government they were meant to protect against, as well as incremental acceptance by generationally less educated students of history, none of them has been more degraded and under attack than the most basic right of all: the right to self preservation and the means to defend one's life and those of their family and neighbors; not necessarily only from unsavory citizens, but specifically from a corrupted ruling body seeking to impose its will over the citizens whom they would prefer to lord over as subjects and slaves rather than the free citizens we are meant to be.

The Second Amendment: How It Came to Be, and Why Modern Politicians Rightfully Fear It

It may surprise some to learn that prior to the Revolutionary War, gunsmithing was carried out unimpeded by anyone skilled enough to produce those colonial era firearms such as muskets, smooth bore rifles, and even larger artillery such as cannons (more on this later). Colonial governments were scarcely visible in the private production of firearms, and there were few, if any, regulations. In fact, prior to the war, most American families and homesteads held at least one firearm for the safeguarding of themselves, their famiilies, and their property. Government intrusion into the arms market didn't begin in earnest before the establishment of the first armory in 1776. These early armories housed little more than ammunition until they finally began producing firearms later in the 1790s

The states were also ill equipped and terribly outnumbered on the sea. This led to the licensing of naval privateers, complete with their perfecly legal and unregulated cannons, to assist the Continental Fleet in overcoming the might and numbers of the British Navy during the war.

It was not only the successful liberation of America using little more than private militias and sea vessels to defeat the most powerful regular military in the world at that time, but also a deep understanding of military history, that would lead future President James Madison, amongst others, to frequently speak at length as they argued against a standing military to serve the government, conversely favoring private citizens maintain their militias and civilian statuses:

“A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defense against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.”   ~ James Madison, 1787 Constitutional Convention

Taken together, their immutable recognition of self-defense as a birthright to be safeguarded from those in power who may wish to remove it and subjugate them through state sponsored violence; the fact that the fledgling nation had not only issued no private firearms restrictions but also defeated the British using those same private fireams, led by citizen militias and privateers; and the knowledge that a standing government army has in every case throughout history been used against its own citizens to preserve the governing authority no longer granted them by the consent of the disenchanted governed; the context surrounding the second amendment is remarkably clear and unambiguous:

"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."

The well regulated Militia mentioned at the outset, during this period in history, would have meant the common, or "regular" people willing to train and take up arms against any enemy foreign or domestic, thus being necessary to the security of a free State, which would undoubtedly extend to a free man. People may argue incessantly about that preamble and what it actually means, but there is no room for interpretation of that final clause: "[T]he right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." There can be no meaning other than the American citizens shall have unfettered access to fireams. Not just certain citizens. Not just certain firearms or artillery. Not with any licenses, restrictions, or screenings. The people of this new nation were intended to bear the same arms and artillery as those men who had just defeated the British to secure independence from one despotic government,  and forerver be armed well enough to prevent another from rising in its place.

Today's politicians are far removed from the morality, turmoil, and justice that the founders shared with each other as well as their kinsmen. They have corrupted nearly every aspect of the beautifully crafted Constitution of this Republic. They commit with impunity all of the same sins against the people, and more, that King George perpetrated before the colonists declared their independence from his "Crown Authority". And this is why today's gaggle of congressmen, senators, and presidents - most of whom are simply legacies with no leadership skills or life experience; only there due to lineage, much like the dynastic families of Monarchs like King George - are so incredibly terrified at the thought of an armed and angry populace. They, too, understand that so long as the people choose to arm and defend themselves, their control over the citzenry can only extend so far; they shudder at the thought of what crossing that line might look like. 

This is why they are so intent on destroying the second amendment. Without our God given right to defend ourselves in any given situation, we become nothing more than modern day slaves, subject to those who control the Standing Armies.