Home Prepper Entertainment Top 10 Best Second Amendment Memes

Top 10 Best Second Amendment Memes

by Derrick James

If a picture is worth a thousand words, what is a meme worth? When it comes to arguing with gun control advocates online, sometimes a meme can offer clear and concise logic that is difficult to refute. For those of you who cherish not only our Constitution, but also our inherent rights, here are the top ten best second amendment memes of all time.

by Aden Tate, author of The Faithful Prepper

Note that, because we take pride in our work, we made these memes into clean, higher-resolution images. These 2A memes are crisp, so feel free to save and share them with others. Then let the online arguments ensue in the comments that follow. Always a good time!

#10 Thinking Dinosaur Musket Meme

The “musket” argument is one that gets used by gun control advocates over and over. It’s a recurring theme in these memes, throwing the musket argument back at them with logic that “should” make them go “hmmmm.”

dinosaur 2a meme

#9 Clint Eastwood on Gun Control

Clint Eastwood, whether portraying a cowboy or Dirty Harry, held a gun in many of his movie roles. It’s hard to argue with his logic. If there is a gun around, I want to be in control of it, too!

clint eastwood gun meme

#8 AR-15 and Quill Pen Meme

Here we are with the musket again. Muskets are to quill pens as ballpoint pens are to AR-15s. ‘Nuff said.

2a musket meme

#7 Don’t Register Your Gun Meme

Did you register your voice or keyboard in order to express your freedom of speech? I didn’t think so.

register gun meme

#6 California 2nd Amendment Supporter

Conservatives, preppers, and many others like to criticize California’s high taxes and strict gun control laws. Imagine being in California using your 1st Amendment rights to advocate for your 2nd Amendment rights.

california gun control meme
“I can’t. Fight them. Off. Much. Longer…”

#5 Second Amendment Theme Park

Speaking of California, they do have some good theme parks. If you want a 2nd Amendment theme park, however, you merely need to visit your local shooting range.

second amendment theme park
That’s what I’ll call them from now on.

#4 Female Defense Meme

The equal protection clause in the 14th Amendment requires states to treat all citizens equally. However, when it comes to personal defense, the 2nd Amendment is the great equalizer.

2a woman gun meme

#3 Muskets and Medicine

If AR-15 advanced technology changes the impact of the 2nd Amendment, what does applying that logic to other areas mean?

old medical tools musket

#2 Founding Fathers and Advances in Technology

Let’s address this “advances in technology” argument head on, shall we? Do you think that’s what the Founding Fathers intended?

george washington 2a meme

#1 Limits on Constitution Meme

If the Founding Fathers did not mean to limit the Constitution’s power to early-American technology, did they mean to limit it unless there is an unfortunate tragedy?

found fathers gun meme

I think not.

Meme Wrap Up

So there you have it, the top ten best Second Amendment memes in clear, crisp resolution. Use and share freely!

Do you have a favorite 2A meme or argument? Let us know in the comments section.

Want to exercise your 2nd Amendment right now? Shop deals at Palmetto State Armory:

2 comments

Dave from San Antonio August 14, 2020 - 8:01 pm

Just a thought. I’ve noticed that criminals seem to obey the law better than most of our elected officials…honor their ‘Oath of Office’.

Reply
William Heino Sr. June 17, 2021 - 3:38 pm

In light of the recent ruling (6/4/21 ) by Federal judge Roger Benitez overturning a California firearms ban on assault weapons where he ruled it violates the Constitutional right to bear arms, his words, referring to the Second Amendment, I have a suggestion. In my thesis regarding the Second Amendment I think it will prove his ruling “..right to bear arms” has everything to do with a “militia” and nothing to do with a “person” or individual, which the following will suggest..

In some 225 years neither law professors, academic scholars, teachers, students, lawyers or congressional legislators after much debate have not been able to satisfactorily explain or demonstrate the Framers intended purpose of Second Amendment of the Constitution. I had taken up that challenge allowing  Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s dilemma to understand the true intent of the Second Amendment.

I will relate further by demonstration, the intent of the Framers, my understanding using the associated wording to explain. The Second Amendment states, “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

Militia, a body of citizens organized for military service.

If, as some may argue, the Second Amendment’s “militia” meaning is that every person has a right to keep and bear arms, the only way to describe ones right as a private individual is not as a “militia” but as a “person.” (The individual personality of a human being: self)

The 4th Amendment reminds us, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons….”

The Article of Confederation lists eleven (11) references to“person/s.” The Constitution lists “person” or “persons” 49 times to explicitly describe, clarify and mandate a constitutional legal standing as to a “person” his or her constitutional duty and rights, what he or she can do or not do.

It’s not enough to just say “person/s” is mentioned in the United States Constitution 49 times, but to see it for yourself (forgo listing), and the realization was for the concern envisioned by the Framers that every person be secure in these rights explicitly spelled out, referenced and understood how these rights were to be applied to that “person.”

Whereas, in the Second Amendment any reference to “person” is not to be found. Was there a reason? Which leaves the obvious question, why did the Framers use the noun “person/s” as liberally as they did throughout the Constitution 49 times and not apply this understanding to explicitly convey the same legal standard in defining an individual “persons” right to bear arms as a person?

Justice Amy Coney Barrett dissent in Barr v Kanter (2019) Second Amendment argument acquiesced to 42 references to “person/s, of which 13 characterize either a gun or firearm. Her Second Amendment, “textualism” approach having zero reference to “person/s. Justice Barrett’s  view only recognizes “person/s” in Barr, as well in her many other 7th circuit rulings. It is her refusal to acknowledge, recognize or connect the U.S. Constitution benchmark legislative interpretive precept language of “person/s,” mandated in our Constitution 49 times, to the Second Amendment.
 
Leaving Supreme Court Justice Barrett’s judgment in question.

In the entire U.S. Constitution “militia” is mentioned 5 times. In these references there is no mention of “person” or “persons.” One reference to “people” in the Second Amendment. People, meaning not a person but persons in describing militia.

Now comes the word “shall” mentioned in the Constitution 100 times. SHALL; ought to, must ..

And interestingly, the word “shall” appears in the Second Amendment. “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and shall not be infringed.”

“[S]hall not be infringed.” Adding another word “infringed” to clarify any misunderstanding as to the intent of the Second Amendment. Infringe. To encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another;

The condition “Infringe” has put a stop as to any counter thoughts regarding the Second Amendment, as you shall  not infringe or encroach  on beliefs other to what is evident as to the subject “Militia.”

Finally, clarifying “..the right of the people to keep and bear arms…
People. Human beings making up a group or assembly or linked by a common interest.

In closing, I am not against guns, everybody has them. I’m against using the Second Amendment illogically as a crutch. If it makes those feel better so be it. Just what it deserves, use it with a wink.

William Heino Sr.
In light of the recent ruling (6/4/21 ) by Federal judge Roger Benitez overturning a California firearms ban on assault weapons where he ruled it violates the Constitutional right to bear arms, his words, referring to the Second Amendment, I have a suggestion. In my thesis regarding the Second Amendment I think it will prove his ruling “..right to bear arms” has everything to do with a “militia” and nothing to do with a “person” or individual, which the following will suggest..

In some 225 years neither law professors, academic scholars, teachers, students, lawyers or congressional legislators after much debate have not been able to satisfactorily explain or demonstrate the Framers intended purpose of Second Amendment of the Constitution. I had taken up that challenge allowing  Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s dilemma to understand the true intent of the Second Amendment.

I will relate further by demonstration, the intent of the Framers, my understanding using the associated wording to explain. The Second Amendment states, “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

Militia, a body of citizens organized for military service.

If, as some may argue, the Second Amendment’s “militia” meaning is that every person has a right to keep and bear arms, the only way to describe ones right as a private individual is not as a “militia” but as a “person.” (The individual personality of a human being: self)

The 4th Amendment reminds us, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons….”

The Article of Confederation lists eleven (11) references to“person/s.” The Constitution lists “person” or “persons” 49 times to explicitly describe, clarify and mandate a constitutional legal standing as to a “person” his or her constitutional duty and rights, what he or she can do or not do.

It’s not enough to just say “person/s” is mentioned in the United States Constitution 49 times, but to see it for yourself (forgo listing), and the realization was for the concern envisioned by the Framers that every person be secure in these rights explicitly spelled out, referenced and understood how these rights were to be applied to that “person.”

Whereas, in the Second Amendment any reference to “person” is not to be found. Was there a reason? Which leaves the obvious question, why did the Framers use the noun “person/s” as liberally as they did throughout the Constitution 49 times and not apply this understanding to explicitly convey the same legal standard in defining an individual “persons” right to bear arms as a person?

Justice Amy Coney Barrett dissent in Barr v Kanter (2019) Second Amendment argument acquiesced to 42 references to “person/s, of which 13 characterize either a gun or firearm. Her Second Amendment, “textualism” approach having zero reference to “person/s. Justice Barrett’s  view only recognizes “person/s” in Barr, as well in her many other 7th circuit rulings. It is her refusal to acknowledge, recognize or connect the U.S. Constitution benchmark legislative interpretive precept language of “person/s,” mandated in our Constitution 49 times, to the Second Amendment.
 
Leaving Supreme Court Justice Barrett’s judgment in question.

In the entire U.S. Constitution “militia” is mentioned 5 times. In these references there is no mention of “person” or “persons.” One reference to “people” in the Second Amendment. People, meaning not a person but persons in describing militia.

Now comes the word “shall” mentioned in the Constitution 100 times. SHALL; ought to, must ..

And interestingly, the word “shall” appears in the Second Amendment. “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and shall not be infringed.”

“[S]hall not be infringed.” Adding another word “infringed” to clarify any misunderstanding as to the intent of the Second Amendment. Infringe. To encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another;

The condition “Infringe” has put a stop as to any counter thoughts regarding the Second Amendment, as you shall  not infringe or encroach  on beliefs other to what is evident as to the subject “Militia.”

Finally, clarifying “..the right of the people to keep and bear arms…
People. Human beings making up a group or assembly or linked by a common interest.

In closing, I am not against guns, everybody has them. I’m against using the Second Amendment illogically as a crutch. If it makes those feel better so be it. Just what it deserves, use it with a wink.

William Heino Sr.

Reply

Leave a Comment