In the American gun debate, there is an argument frequently used in attempts to nullify the relevance of the second amendment that usually sound something like this: “The founding fathers were talking about muzzle-loading sidearms and artillery, and had not foreseen the scope and impact of modern weaponry.”
This argument contains two understated, side-lined assumptions:
1. That the founding fathers were unaware of the impact of changes in military technology. From stone to bronze, bronze to iron, from maille to plate, from bareback to saddle and stirrup, from simple bows to compound recurve, longbow, and crossbow, from single lever catapults to complex trebuchets – history is nothing but a continuous escalation in both the destructive and defensive force of military technology, and scholars that they were, would have had no reason to believe that this pattern of change would cease.
2. That the language of the second amendment was surface level only, and not a statement of foundational ethical philosophy and governing *principle*.
Time for context. America was birthing itself from a Europe where Feudalism was still absolutely a defining force, even as it was transmogrifying into Imperialism. To be a man-at-arms in Feudal Europe meant that your allegiance was sworn to a Lord; to bear arms meant that you were in service to someone. This concept itself was descended from the Germanic (anglo/saxon, frankish, gothic, nordic, etc.) tribal concept of troth, where bearing a sword/spear was one in the same as swearing an oath to kin and chieftain. You were either a chieftain, or in service to a chieftain, or else you were an outcast. The right to bear arms (which was previously given by lords and not inherent) was in the language of old Europe, the right to lordship over oneself – that, everyone may be a chieftain, and every homestead an estate. When interpreted in the context of “a well-regulated militia”, it becomes clear that the power being given is one meant to check and balance the accumulation of excessive or central power. What mattered was not the nature of the armament, but that the right to armament be equal or greater to that of any standing army.
In short, if the second amendment were properly adhered to (by the PEOPLE, with whom this responsibility falls) every county in the United States would be able to field a small army, based on voluntary service by the Lord and sons of each homestead, and that army would have an arsenal of capacity needed to make it a proper check and balance.
Yes, a handful of AR-15 style weapons won’t stop the American military, and won’t prevent tyranny. Every county in the United States should possess military level ordinance. Every county should have a contingent of tanks, helicopters, and planes with accompanying ammo and fuel dumps. It is the responsibility of each American citizen to ensure this, in order to protect Lordship over his own estate, and such is the “right to bear arms” – not merely to own weapons, but to be a militarily relevant force in one’s own service, accountable for his own freedom, and thereby for the freedom of his neighbors as well.
"But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.” Luke 22:36
Research the clergy who valiantly and courageously fought in the Revolutionary War!