HomeJoinMissionAbout UsLinksActivism

The Final Bell


By Nicki Fellenzer

Oleg VolkIt appears that the final bell is going to toll for the so-called “assault weapons” ban on Monday September 13, and the gun banners are staging a concerted whine fest in their attempts to foist an extension of this unconstitutional legislation.

Jim and Sarah Brady are questioning the sanity and sobriety of any politician who dares voice his support for the sunset of this pathetic, worthless restriction on your rights.

Letter writers, newspaper editors and the Brady Campaign are petulantly whimpering that the sunset of the ban will see a flood of evil, baby-killing machines hit the streets and blood of innocents will soak our pavements.

Other columnists are lamenting that our brave police will now be outgunned by criminals with military-style weapons.

Even the ACLU – an organization that exists supposedly to defend our civil rights – is peddling historically and intellectually inaccurate sub-truths and propaganda in support of the gun banners’ mission. “Except for lawful police and military purposes,” claims an ACLU gun control brief, “the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected.”

And still others claim that not only do we, as a populace not NEED these weapons, but that they are not fit for hunting, which is what the Second Amendment is, after all, right?


The Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting, and historical documents specifically show that the Founding Fathers fully intended for the citizens of this nation to be at least as well armed as the government agents to whom the people grant their authority.

The Founding Fathers distrusted governments, believed government was equivalent to force, and fought to ensure that the populace had adequate weaponry to resist a government out of control. Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist 28:

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defence, which is paramount to all positive forms of government…” Hamilton continues, “In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.

But Hamilton also realized that the people couldn’t rush to arms to resist a despot if they were inadequately armed or trained, so he continued in Federalist 29:

"A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss."

Not only does Hamilton admit that the people’s last defense against a tyrannical government is their ability for armed resistance, but he also insists that the people’s militia must be as well trained and maintained as the military, but without government control over the people comprising said militia.

Further, Tench Coxe echoed Hamilton’s sentiment in the Pennsylvania Gazette in 1788, “…Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American."

Notice that Coxe specifically noted that military-style weapons are the birthright of an American.

What does this mean?

It means that we, Americans, have the unique capability of resisting armed tyrants in our midst. It means that the founders who established this great nation realized that life, liberty and property were natural rights – not granted by any government, but endemic to each human being – and to be guarded zealously from infringement by armed citizens. They further understood that a populace cannot resist a tyrannical government that has better, stronger arms than the people themselves. George Mason asserted that such a government will have a natural tendency to oppress the people and insisted that self defense from a tyrant was a natural right granted by "Divine Providence."

Why would the Founding Fathers insist that the people be properly trained and equipped to resist a tyrannical government if they didn’t intend for them to possess the same or better arms than the government’s agents and armies?

And if they saw the possession of arms as the birthright of an American, why would the gun banners of today disingenuously push for a ban on the very weapons that are critical tools Americans need to stand up to tyrants?

Those who insist that the people were not meant to have military-style weapons do not understand the purpose behind the Second Amendment, the Founding Fathers’ intent to create a truly free nation and what an armed populace represented to them.

It represented the last line of defense against an oppressive government.

And it represented the difference between a free man and a slave.

So when Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN) publicly claims that "The police should not be overwhelmed by firepower… My first year as Indianapolis mayor was 1968, a very turbulent and violent time in many cities. This period impressed on me the necessity of protecting our law enforcement officers,” remember that this is EXACTLY what the Founders intended. They expected the populace to outgun the “authorities.” They wanted to ensure that those “in charge” could never have access to more force than the people themselves.

And when uninformed, anti-freedom editors claim, “The desire to keep terrorists and other madmen from wielding rifles designed for military use should not be perceived as an attack on the Second Amendment,” know that this is EXACTLY what this desire is.

Terrorists have not used any military-style rifles to murder innocents in the United States. As a matter of fact, these weapons are used in less than two percent of crimes.

The Founding Fathers intended for no weapon to be designed strictly for the military. And any attempt to mislead you into believing otherwise is a slap in the face to those men who established this country.

NICKI FELLENZER, AFA National Spokesperson

Nicki FellenzerNicki is a US Army veteran, who spent nearly four years in Frankfurt, Germany on active duty at the American Forces Network. She is a former radio DJ and news anchor and a Featured Writer and Newslinks Director for Keepandbeararms.com. She is also a former contributing editor to the National Rifle Association's newest monthly magazine, Women's Outlook and she is currently the contributing editor to Concealed Carry Magazine and writes occasionally for the Libertarian Party. She resides in Virginia with her family. We are also proud to have Nicki as regular contributor to Armed Females of America and to speak for Armed Females on our position against gun control and freedom issues.

Copyright © 2004 by Armed Females of America. All rights reserved. Permission to redistribute this article for noncommercial purposes is hereby granted, provided that it is reproduced unedited, in its entirety and appropriate credit given.


e-mail this article