top of page

Welcome to the Gun Show, Part Three Assault Rifles and the Second Amendment

CRYSTAL LEO

General Manager


As part of his “Gun Safety” manifesto, President Biden reportedly wants to, Get weapons of war off our streets. The bans on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines that Biden, along with Senator Feinstein, secured in 1994 reduced the lethality of mass shootings. But, in order to secure the passage of the bans, they had to agree to a 10-year sunset provision and when the time came, the Bush Administration failed to extend them. As president, Biden will:

Ban the manufacture and sale of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Federal law prevents hunters from hunting migratory game birds with more than three shells in their shotgun. That means our federal law does more to protect ducks than children. It’s wrong. Joe Biden will enact legislation to once again ban assault weapons. This time, the bans will be designed based on lessons learned from the 1994 bans. For example, the ban on assault weapons will be designed to prevent manufacturers from circumventing the law by making minor changes that don’t limit the weapon’s lethality. While working to pass this legislation, Biden will also use his executive authority to ban the importation of assault weapons.”

The average gun owner, however, will tell you there is a major problem with this proposed ban. It violates their Second Amendment rights.

On September 25, 1789, Congress passed the first 10 amendments for the Bill of Rights. Those amendments were then ratified on December 15, 1791. If you ask the average citizen what the Second Amendment is, their answer is usually “the right to bear arms.” While this is partially correct, it is not the entire amendment. It also 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.”

According to the website constitutioncenter.org, “Many in the Founding generation believed that governments are prone to use soldiers to oppress the people.” In other words, as a country of people who had just gained their independence from Great Britain not long before, they wanted the American people to have a fail safe in case down the road of history the United States Government ever tried to use their own military forces to oppress the general population. Thereby, allowing them in the constitution to own weapons and form a militia to defend themselves.

Five days ago at a press conference, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said, “No one is talking about overturning or changing the Second Amendment.” Instead, that President Biden is eying executive actions and legislation on gun control.

Stating that the President does not want to change the Second Amendment is great, but are they potentially infringing on citizens’ rights to formulating a “well regulated Militia” if they do enact gun legislation over assault rifles?

First, I would say the average citizen should understand what was constituted as weapons at the initial start of the Revolutionary War. There was no standing army at the first outbreaks of the war and colonists had to rely on those part time citizen soldiers who formed their militia for local defense. Militias had very limited supplies of weapons and ammunitions, so this meant that some militia men went into battle armed with nothing more than their household and farming implements that could be put to lethal use.

Everyone watch out for Uncle Joe with the gardening hoe!

For those who did have proper weapons, they might be armed with swords, tomahawks or axes and were doomed to bloody hand to hand combat.

Those that were lucky enough to be armed with a gun, the most common at that time was the flintlock musket. Muskets were muzzle loaders filled with a single shot, or “grape shot” which would be the equivalent to multiple pellets or today’s bird shot. T