Why the Founders Wrote the Second Amendment

The Founding Fathers were very clear when they wrote the Second Amendment and why they wrote it, yet many leftists fantasize about removing it from our constitution, often by taking a moral high ground. It’s incredibly important for the United States to understand the language of the amendment, especially the “shall not be infringed” part.

In this article, we examine why the Founders wrote the Second Amendment, their thought process, why it still matters today with real-world examples, and the conservative argument for common left-wing logic.

In This Argument…

Why the Founders wrote the Second Amendment and how their belief stems from God.
Real-world examples of why the Second Amendment matters today
Why it does not make sense, historically, logically, or statistically to restrict gun owners in the United States

For many, they believe that the Founders wrote about the right to bear arms is simply for hunting and self defense, or for a state-run militia. This is not true. The Second Amendment is actually for defending the people from tyranny. Let’s analyze the language of the Second Amendment and determine how we know:

“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 first part that states, “A well regulated militia,” is what many anti-Second Amendment activists focus on. They believe that this means that the Founders originally intended that the Second Amendment is only for a state-run militia. This is wrong. The Founders were very clear, as they intended the militia to be the people. The phrase “well regulated” simply means trained or properly functioning.

In 1788, Tench Coxe, a Federalist ally, wrote, “Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American… their situation is well regulated because every citizen has arms in his hands.”

Furthermore, also in 1788, George Mason said, “I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.”

The next part of the amendment that says, “being necessary to the security of a free State” simply means that the militia (the trained army of the people), is necessary for liberty and defending against tyranny. We know this because Tench Coxe in 1788 wrote “The militia, who are in fact the effective part of the people at large, will form a barrier against tyranny.”

Then the third sentence of the amendment says, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” refers to a natural right that a person has, not one that the government grants. The Founders believed that your rights came from God, a source outside and higher than the government.

The government shall not take these rights away from you because they are from God, which is why the final phrase of the amendment says, “shall not be infringed.”

Overall, the Founders wrote the Second Amendment so the people of America could protect themselves against a tyrannical government.

Does the Second Amendment Still Matter Today?

Some claim that the Second Amendment was good hundreds of years ago, but shouldn’t exist today. And many believe that the Founders only had muskets in mind and didn’t comprehend future technology. But the truth is, yes, it still matters today.

Today, it is needed for the same reason it was needed in 1776, to prevent tyranny. Believe it or not, government overreach and the threat of tyranny are happening all over the world today, possibly more than in 1776.

Instances like the German government raiding a suspect’s apartment because the individual was suspected of posting a racist cartoon online, or Zoe Buhler being arrested by the Australian government in her home for promoting an anti-lockdown event.

The Chinese government also bans civilian gun ownership, monitors its population with facial recognition and social credit systems, and punishes dissent harshly. Things like criticism of the government can impact your ability to travel, work, or buy property.

History shows us why civilian government ownership is essential to resisting tyranny. The Venezuelan government became a socialist dictatorship and even used the military against its own citizens, but not before banning private gun ownership.

Mao Zedong murdered 80 million people after confiscating gun ownership in 1949, ensuring that only the Communist Party held power. He famously said, “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.” Mao understood that an armed civilization is a dangerous civilization to tyrannical rule.

In 1938, Hitler disarmed the Jewish population and gave the state the power to deny gun rights based on ethnicity or politics. Once fully in control, the Nazi government launched the systematic extermination of 6 million Jews.

There are plenty of examples of why the Second Amendment still matters today, and why it shall not be infringed.

Common Rebuttals

In this section, we will lay out common arguments made by anti-Second Amendment activists, and the conservative argument for those.

The Second Amendment is only for a state-run militia: This is false, the term “militia” in the Second Amendment language simply refers to the people. We have evidence of this during the Virginia Ratifying Convention when George Mason said, “I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.”
The Founders only had muskets in mind, not AR15s: It’s ignorant to think that the Founders only had their current technology in mind, especially when we look at the language of the Constitution. But let’s think about this: If the Second Amendment was only intended for muskets, did the Founders then also think that the first amendment was only for paper and speech, and not Twitter and Facebook and text messages? Yes, we have changed things in the Constitution but the first two amendments not changing speaks to their importance.
30,000 gun deaths a year: This is a common number that leftists cite when debating gun rights, but it’s a misleading statistic. Yes, there are about 30,000 or more accurately, 48,000 gun deaths a year in the United States, but let’s understand what it’s made of. More than half of that number of gun deaths are from suicide. Of the roughly 20,000 firearm homicides each year, about 57% are committed with handguns, and most occur in urban areas, often involving interpersonal violence, illegal activity, or gang affiliations.
No one needs an AR15: Aside from the obvious argument of tyrannical defense, most mass shootings (4+ shot), in the U.S. are committed with handguns. So it would make more sense for a blanket gun ban, if the argument is purely about numbers.
Australia did it: Yes, Australia successfully disarmed their population, and during COVID-19, Australia implemented some of the strictest lockdowns in the world where people were banned from leaving their homes for more than one hour per day, drones monitored public spaces, and protesters were arrested.

With all of these rebuttals, there still has never been a clear answer on:

Why it’s OK to punish the responsible gun owner for a criminal’s actions
How many lives have firearms saved?

It makes no sense to punish gun owners that are following the law for the actions of a criminal, especially when firearms been used in self defense 100,000 to 2,000,000 times annually. This means that firearm use has (probably) saved more lives than firearm use has taken.

Furthermore, if the right to bear arms is infringed upon, what makes you think that criminals will follow it? Criminals do not follow the law by definition, so why restrict responsible gun ownership and those who want to defend themselves against criminals?

The Bottom Line

The Founders wrote the Second Amendment to restrict the government. They believed that the rights are from God and are inalienable, and the language of the Second Amendment is very clear.
The Second Amendment is a significant matter today to defend against tyrannical government overreach, with many examples from current governments to Mao and Hitler.
It does not make sense, historically, logically, or statistically to restrict gun owners in the United States.

Freedom involves some sort of risk. That’s the reality of a free society, allowing the individual the ability to make their own choices comes with the understanding that some individuals will abuse that freedom. But the alternative is worse. A government that promises to remove all risk must also remove individual choice, individual freedom. That’s not safety, that’s tyranny wearing the mask of protection.