Bob Owens

The saddest truth in politics is that people get the leaders they deserve

An open challenge to the news media on the intent of the Second Amendment

Written By: Bob - Dec• 23•12

In the wake of a mass shooting tragedy, the media reliably records “man on the street” interviews with individuals that “can’t understand why anyone would need” a “assault weapon” for home defense, hunting, etc. In a dumbed-down nation, the uninformed are easy to find, and the informed easy to edit out of a broadcast or article.

What no news organization will do—not CNN, nor NPR, the Washington Post nor the New York Times—is actually pull in an expert on the Second Amendment and allow them to speak to the reason and rationale behind the Second Amendment without being interrupted or shouted down.

If they did, they’d have to face the uncomfortable fact that the Second Amendment isn’t about hunting, nor personal defense, but was to codify a pre-existing natural right to be armed with weapons of contemporary military utility to defend against enemies to liberty both foreign and domestic. One could make a very arguable case they meant any man-portable arms, up to including light machine guns and grenade launchers (they themselves own cannons), but that is mere conjecture. They wanted Americans armed as a threat to nations considering invasion, and a powerful deterrent to tyranny imposed by a centralized federal government.

Put bluntly, purpose of the right to keep and bear arms was to make sure that citizens had militarily-useful arms to fight foreign invaders and to depose would-be domestic tyrants.

It is without question that since the Founding Fathers were armed with the most advanced military small arms of their day, that they meant to protect that same right for future citizens as well. AR-15 and similar semi-automatic rifles are the exact kind of contemporary military-grade firearms the Founders meant to protect.

I challenge any and all news media to accurately, contextually present this truth to the “national discussion.”

I make this challenge, knowing none will answer it.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.


  1. Chaz says:

    According to CNN\’s Piers Morgan: \”The 2nd amendment was devised with muskets in mind, not high-powered handguns & assault rifles. Fact.\”

    He also asks: \”is my opinion not protected under 1st Amendment rights?\”

    Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Radio, TV, the internet et al were not known to the Founding Fathers. Therefor his opinions are only protected when literally in print.

    The blog sphere is also wondering whether Piers Morgan\’s bodyguard carries a black powder musket.

  2. rumcrook™ says:

    they know whats best for us, they will protect and feed us and give us shelter. we only need to bow to our knees, they are so magnanimous they dont even require us to stand on our own two feet.

  3. Al Reasin says:

    Good point Chaz about print journalism vs modern telecommunications.

    Mr. Theodore L. Johnson seems to have done his homework on why the 2nd Amendment was added to the Constitution and why it was written as it was. He noted this, \”With respect to Second Amendment rights, New Hampshire recommended a provision that \”Congress shall never disarm any Citizen unless such as are or have been in Actual Rebellion.\” The Virginia, North Carolina, Rhode Island and New York letters are almost identical to each other on this subject he wrote here:

  4. ali-gator says:

    My only thought on the subject is that the founders probably only meant to protect \”precision\” weapons that are only capable of disabling the intended target. Thus swords knives rifles & handguns are protected. Grenades various bombs & possibly fully automatic firearms are not (because they\’re difficult to hold on target). I\’m confident that Madison Jefferson et al wished only the would be tyrants to be destroyed (because they \”need it\”) and hoped the nearby innocent bystander would be safe.

    The great issue is one rarely mentioned anywhere. A long while back there was a report on the 60s-70s Rhodesian conflict. When ammo became scarce the Rhodesian government of the time decreed that soldiers were forbidden to fire rifles in full auto mode. The result was no result. Casualty figures were unchanged. Semi-auto proved to be as efficient as full auto.

    And so marxist evildoers worldover realized they can\’t succeed without banning SEMI-automatic weapons.

  5. Pakkinpoppa says:

    There were grenade launchers in use during the Revolutionary War. Were they widespread, as in, one out of every ten guys had a flintlock bomb lobber? No, but they would most certainly have qualified in the “arms” department.

    Also, people owned armed merchant ships. As in…it held cannon. Not “cannon” as in one, but “cannon” as in, multiple, in some cases, dozens and perhaps up to 100. Not to mention…there were Letters of Marque…allowing government sanctioned piracy against vessels flying enemy flags.

    And note the irony of folk claiming technology advances weren’t envisioned by the founders…are they using manual, moving type printing presses…or some sort of device the founders couldn’t have even dreamed of?