Sunday, February 25, 2018


After the Revolutionary War the U.S was broke.  The government could not afford to pay, equip and maintain a large standing army.  

On December 15, 1791 the Congress addressed this issue by enacting the Second Amendment to the Constitution to federally mandate state militias.  
Five months later they passed the Military Act of 1792 conscripting all “free able-bodied white male citizen” between the ages of 18 and 45 into a local militia company.  

Where available men were to be issue a musket, bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a cartridge box with 24 bullets and a knapsack.   Men owning rifles were required to provide their own rifle, a powder horn, ¼ pound of gunpowder, 20 rifle balls, a shooting pouch and a knapsack. 

Congress declared that in times of imminent invasion or insurrection the President had authority to take command of the State militias.   This authority was used to suppress the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794.

The purpose of the Second Amendment was to establish militias and defined the right of citizens to own guns as necessary to insure the militias were properly armed.

This Second Amendment right to bear arms has been totally taken out of context. 

Remember when Sarah Palin said that Paul Revere's ride was to inform the British that Americans would not give up their guns?   People believe what they want to believe.

The Second U.S. Congress did not enact the Second Amendment to insure some moronic would be able to take an assault weapon into McDonald’s to buy a hamburger. 


  1. The historical interpretation makes so much more sense than the NRA's warped vision of it.

  2. So the second amendment had nothing to do with the fact that the new United States had just taken their weapons from their homes (weapons that were equal or superior to what the British had) and fought the legitimate government?
    The other "odd" thing is all the first ten amendments (The Bill of Rights) are restrictions on the government. They are rules that limit the government power.

    My other big question in all this mess is how can someone blame the tool & not the user? A car kills your kid you don't blame the car. But when madmen over a period of less than 20 years start doing unthinkable things, for some reason they are not blamed, it's some of the tools they used. Not all of the tools just some of them.

    I think someone is successfully convincing the public that the tools are to blame, not the madness.
    That is a shame.

  3. Rob, if a kid hits another kid with a stick you might punish the kid depending on the circumstance, but you will still take away the stick.


COMMENT: Ben Franklin said, "I imagine a man must have a good deal of vanity who believes, and a good deal of boldness who affirms, that all doctrines he holds are true, and all he rejects are false."