The Founding Fathers did not anticipate the world as it is today. They laid out general principles for self-government. They surely did not imagine a people armed with semi-automatic weapons, bazookas, and machine guns.
Reader GregB offers this insight:
Today’s event prompted me to look through some old notes I made after reading Henry Adams’ “History of the United States During the Madison Administration” a few years ago:
Adam’s account is dominated by a history of the War of 1812 and provides a lesson of why the 2nd amendment was included in the Constitution.
It was an era of American sectional division, which Adams summed up poetically: “At the beginning of the year 1814, the attitude of New England pleased no one, and perhaps annoyed most the New England people themselves, who were conscious of showing neither dignity, power, courage, nor intelligence.” But a long-forgotten legacy of the war was that it was the first of many eras in which the Constitution was tested and “violated more frequently by its friends than by its enemies.” We find ourselves in just such quandary today when it comes to the willful misinterpretations of the 2nd amendment: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of the State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Today’s 2nd amendment fetishists prefer a selective reading, valuing willful fiction over actual history. If they care about the difference, they should give Adams a try. In its early history, the United States was a fragile country teetering on the precipice of failure as a nation. It had a weak standing army, no navy to speak of, and mostly relied on the formation of citizen militias in the event of war against foreign nation or Native Americans. For this to work citizens had to have the right to keep weapons; the government had no stockpiles on which to rely. The 2nd amendment was also never intended to provide citizen with the means to overthrow some mythical tyrannical American government; it was designed to give citizens the tools needed that were “necessary to the security of the State.” It was designed to protect government, not undermine it.
The War of 1812 was the first—and only—time the idea of “A well-regulated Militia” was ever put to the test. And it was mostly a failure. As Adams chronicles, Americans won the war largely in spite of themselves. Thanks to some strategic victories, British support lines that were unsustainably long and skillful diplomacy by John Quincy Adams, the United States was able to prevail. But it also led to the formation of a stronger standing Army, which saw its first major action a few decades later in the Mexican War. The idea of “well-regulated Militia[s]” became obsolete, as did, with time, a rational reading and understanding of the 2nd amendment.
As I watch the perversion of the 2nd amendment used as a basis to justify daily destruction and carnage in the United States, I often think of this account of the War of 1812. Henry Adams reminds us of why history is important to contemporary life. Agendas built on historical ignorance can be deadly.

Thank you, GregB! So well said!!!
LikeLike
Thank you GregB and Diane. I think it is well past time for the NRA and its defenders to be held responsible for mass killings that are accomplished with weapons designed for that exact purpose.
LikeLike
One we know about Our Founders is that they were not insane.
Only an insane person would interpret the Second Dementment the way it has been for the last dozen years or so since the NRA and Gun Lobby bought off Congress and SCOTUS.
LikeLike
(ed) One thing we know …
LikeLike
Remember when they used to advertise on TV for “Recordings by the original artists” where “The Original Artists” was the name of the group doing the covers?
I believe we have a similar situation with the “Founding Fathers”(TM)
There is a group (with Dick Cheney as lead vocalist) with that name whose “original intent” was to rewrite the US Constitution to suit their fancy.
LikeLike
LOL
LikeLike
Sorry, but the U.S. did NOT “win” the War of 1812. The foolish U.S. started it in an attempt to pry Canada from Britain, which was fighting Napoleon at the time.
The British still had enough forces to capture Washington, D.C. and burn the White House. If not for their major attention to, and deployment of most troops to fight Napoleon, we may be speaking with British accents today.
LikeLike
Gee we would be just like Canada or Australia .
Medicare for all , a 32% unionization rate. (Can) , A ban on Assault weapons, an $18 minimum wage (Australia ).
LikeLike
LOL
LikeLike
So, in a nutshell, what you are saying is that if the British hadn’t had accidents, we’d have British accents.
LikeLike
I may have to quote you, as this is the best description of our current gun worshipers, who think they understand our Constitution better than an IU Law Professor: “Today’s 2nd amendment fetishists prefer a selective reading, valuing willful fiction over actual history.” Unfortunately, facts do not matter to these guys.
LikeLiked by 1 person
GOOD WORD, fetishist. When a man who has a sickness, a consuming fetish for guns, can walk into stores and purchase numerous assault weapons and massive supply of ammunition, and yet the gun-store owners describes him as a “normal, everyday guy…”
LikeLike
Indeed!
LikeLike
The War of 1812, was basically a draw. The only major battle that the Americans won, was the battle of New Orleans, and it was 6 weeks after the peace treaty, and therefore meaningless.
The British sent in their “second team”, because the cream of their Army and Navy, were tied up fighting Napoleon. The British were basically able to roam the USA at will, and for two years, every attempt the weak US Army tried, the British clobbered them.
LikeLike
Many — today, probably most — champions of the Second Amendment argue that it is designed to be a bulwark against tyranny, a means to ensure that citizens have the means to defend themselves again, or overthrow, the state. By that logic, the Second Amendment is meaningless unless it ensures that citizens have weaponry just as advanced as the state does, lest they be overwhelmed by the technology gap. For then, there can be no weapon too powerful for Second Amendment protection.
LikeLike
Don’t you understand, that the American patriots in 1776, had weapons that were state of the art, and on a par with the British?
The 2d amendment says nothing about technology. A well-regulated militia, is necessary for a free state. The militia/citizens must have weapons that are on a par with the state.
Figure it out.
LikeLike
Still making excuses for slaughter of innocents. Sickening.
LikeLike
Thank you, Charles, for perfectly illustrating my point.
LikeLike
C and F: your collective assumptions that “[t]he militia/citizens must have weapons that are on par with the state” is, once again, one that can’t be found in the documented history of the framing, the contemporary debate surrounding its ratification, or a latter Supreme Court reading of the Constitution.
LikeLike
See my comments below. This is not my assumption. I was saying that it is a view that many hold. Charles stepped up to illustrate my point.
LikeLike
Your comment above is exactly what this blog post title explains.
De-historicizing the 2nd Amendment through the myth of modern technology superiority sounds more like as gross perversion of sexual assault victims. Yuck.
LikeLike
Illustrating the fact, that the American patriots had weapons, that enabled them to defeat the greatest Army in the world, has nothing to do with the “slaughter of innocents”.
The citizenry of this nation must be armed, for several reasons. To defend our homes, as well as to defend our nation against any hostile government, whether foreign or domestic.
The Japanese empire ruled out an invasion against the USA, because they knew that there would be “a rifle behind every blade of grass”. You can view old newsreels of 1940 Britain, and their militia drilling with broomsticks, because the British government refused to let people own weapons.
The right to keep and bear arms, is meaningless, if the state only permits the citizens, to keep obsolete and useless weapons. A second-best weapon, is like a second-best poker hand, no good.
LikeLike
Nope. That’s patently absurd. The Japanese war airplanes could go as far as the Hawaii and the Pacific Ocean. They didn’t have enough fuel to fly over the entire mainland–much less enough ammo to charge into the body of enemy’s ships.
LikeLike
Speaking of second-best(third or whatever) weapon(s), the US of A are selling the weapons to Europe, Middle East, Africa, Central and South America. And many of those get into the wrong hands and autocratic regimes the US has supported secretly in the history of foreign wars and armed-conflicts.
And country like Japan/South Korea? A dollar stops at local defense forces and cops. People being killed??? Way much lower than the US. By guns? Much lower than the possibility to get killed by cars and trains for suicide. It’s like 1 out 5000.
LikeLike
That false narrative and your reasoning in response , has been around AT LEAST 50 years when I heard it in H.S. or a little later in college. So the “today” narrative doesn’t work. We have been an exceptionally stupid people for a very long time.
LikeLike
My theory is that it has only recently become the rationale of “most,” mainly because it has only very recently become a rationale endorsed by the Supreme Court. 50 years ago, when you mentioned the NRA, people thought of hunting, not insurrection.
LikeLike
FLERP!, you missed my (and Henry Adams’) point entirely. There is no accurate reading of the 2nd amendment that supports your view that its intent was to be a “bulwark against tyranny.” If you read “The Federalist” and the 2nd amendment as written, it was written to give citizens the means to protect and defend the nation should arms ever be needed to do so. The fear of “tyranny” by the federal government is a fiction that has been promoted and advance by the NRA when Harlon Carter assumed its Executive Vice President position in 1977 and put into hyperdrive when Wayne LaPierre assumed that role in 1991. If you have other evidence, please provide the citations.
LikeLike
I’m not saying that’s my reading. I’m saying that’s the reading of many, perhaps most, champions of the Second Amendment.
LikeLike
Also, I assume you meant to refer to another Adams. 😉
LikeLike
Oh, I see you actually did mean Henry Adams. A day of confusion.
LikeLike
FLERP
Sometimes you just can’t win.
LikeLike
“Internet Debates”
You just can’t win
On internet
Cuz anything
Can get you wet
LikeLike
Exactly, Flerp. A totally ridiculous misreading
LikeLike
Things are poised to get much much worse as the NRA and it’s sock puppet politicians are trying to pass the “Hearing Protection Act” which will legalize silencers. They claim that they are only mufflers that don’t reduce the sound by much at all, which is both true at the moment and also completely by design. They know how totally unpopular a device which totally silences gunfire would be, both among the public and within the law enforcement community, so the ones being made now don’t reduce the sound that much. If the law is passed, that will change very quickly. I saw the hopes of one gun nut that after passage, 80% suppressors would soon hit the market. There is no technological barrier to making such devices. Right now, a particular design is available, one that’s old and not too effective. Other designs exist, it’s possible to DIY them as well. Will the law cover that? Law enforcement takes a dim view of the law. I take a dim view of the silly excuses being made in favor of it. As if existing in and on ear protection is insufficient. Balderdash! It’s all a giant bait and switch by the NRA and the gun industry. Here’s the law enforcement communities position on it all. https://www.lepartnership.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/LEP_Statement-on-The-Hearing-Protection-Act-of-2017_3-10-17.pdf
LikeLike
If you search on “the hearing protection act” you will find dozens and dozens of pro silencer articles and posts and very few against it. It seems the NRA trolls are flooding/gaming search engine results as part of their propaganda campaign. You have to just keep on going to the next page of results until you find opposing views. Too many people don’t do that.
LikeLike
LikeLike
Another viewpoint.
So Few Americans Understand What the Second Amendment Is Really About—or Its Dark History | Alternet Gene B
LikeLike
Yeah, on the previous post, Roy mentioned these slave patrols. A dark history indeed.
LikeLike
So, there was this horrific secondary goal of slave catching, as well as using mustered citizens militias to put down rebellions/insurrections among native Americans and to further the expropriation of what was theirs.
LikeLike
We soon could face those consequences of having a standing army:
https://www.salon.com/2021/12/18/us-generals-issue-chilling-warning–civil-possible-if-another-insurrection-is-attempted_partner/
LikeLike
From 138 CE to 284 CE, there were thirty-two Roman emperors. Not a job people lasted long in. LOL. These weren’t killed and replaced by invading barbarians. They were killed by their own guard or military insurrectionists.
LikeLike
In this day of widespread insanity, I hasten to add that I am NOT making an argument that we should not have a standing army, though via a strengthened United Nations, the people of the world should be following a policy, as suggested by Kant when he first put forward the idea of a confederation of nations to ensure peace, to reduce standing armies everywhere with the goal, eventually, of eliminating them.
LikeLike