by John Bernard, ©2025
(May 8, 2025) — Again, a key word in the rendering of the Second Amendment is “Arms,” a word whose definition has survived intact since antiquity. It denotes weaponry carried and employed by a single man/soldier/Marine/militiaman/hoplite/samurai, etc. – with ZERO descriptive assignment to function or ultimate use.
Assigning “machine gun” broadly to incorporate everything with a selector switch is neither industry nor martially correct. It is lazy, dishonest, linguistically corrupt and worse, intentional. Guns are crew served weapons and not mentioned in the Second Amendment (by the narrow, historically correct use of the term) but, expanding the moniker of machine gun to swallow everything with a selector switch speaks to ignorance on one end and the desire to deny on the other, neither of which is consistent with the concept of the Unalienable Right or the clear understanding of the Founders.
It is ironic that the same people who can gather to memorialize the events of 19 April 1775 at Lexington Green would work so feverishly to prevent the thing that allowed the Minutemen to assemble and challenge the Redcoats that fateful day.
It is inconsistent, arrogant, treacherous, and self-serving to laud the efforts of those men while conspiring to prevent a yet future generation the tools to “throw off” (Declaration of Independence) a yet future threat.
When the Founders penned that Amendment it was not with a future Possibility in mind; it was with the expectation of an impending, future Inevitability.
If there is any comfort in that originating story it is that those men who gathered in Lexington and later in Concord, with Arms, were in the minority, the vast majority of Colonists being against the effort.
Some things never change…
Semper Fidelis;
John Bernard
https://www.courthousenews.com/feds-insist-second-amendment-doesnt-protect-machine-guns