Why El-Sayed's Claim About Second Amendment and Muskets Betrays Profound Ignorance

I'm not a fan of Abdul El-Sayed. I touched on why in a piece earlier today. Not only that, but I suspect many of you share at least some of the reasons I'm not a fan.

Regardless of why, there's one thing he said that reached a level of profound stupidity, something that needs to be addressed.

Abdul El-Sayed on the Second Amendment: "When they promised the right to bear arms, they had muskets. So, yeah, everyone should have equal rights to a musket." https://t.co/Fu1EOJmrH2

— Bobby LaValley (@Bobby_LaVallley) October 20, 2026

Ah, yes, this clever tactic that we have absolutely no answer for despite the millions of times we've provided an answer for it.

So, to Mr. El-Sayed, I have a reply, because this idea of "witty" isn't witty at all when it shows you're an absolute freaking moron.

The Second Amendment Never Just Applied to Muskets

At the time of the nation's founding, "muskets" weren't the only kind of weapon covered by the Second Amendment. A musket is a smoothbore firearm such as the British Brown Bess flintlock used during the American Revolution. Many Americans, particularly militia members, were armed with rifles, such as the Pennsylvania or Kentucky long rifles. These had rifling in the barrel, which increased range and accuracy.

As a result, these were also covered by the Second Amendment at the time of the nation's founding.

Of course, an easy case could be made that I'm being pedantic, that El-Sayed just meant muzzle-loading, hand-held firearms that were commonly used for hunting or, in the case of the odd pistol, self-defense. I'm giving him a lot of grace by even suggesting he may have meant such a thing, mind you, because no one refers to muzzle-loading handguns as "muskets," but roll with me here.

At this point, El-Sayed's comments are still problematic. Why? Because private citizens could lawfully own artillery.

I know, I know, POTATUS kept trying to say they couldn't, but that's not remotely true. It's one of many things that particular individual was completely unaware of, up to and including his own name some days.

This Argument Doesn't Apply to Other Rights

Imagine being someone who tries to claim what El-Sayed does, while also saying stuff like that on the internet. Using this "logic" tells us that there's absolutely no right to free speech on the internet. After all, there's nothing in the Second Amendment that freezes the weapons covered in 18th-century amber, but El-Sayed claims there somehow is. If that's true, then the right to freedom of the press only applies to a manual printing press such as the kind Benjamin Franklin learned on back in the day.

It means freedom of religion doesn't apply to Mormons, simply because the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints didn't exist until 1830.

Obviously, this is BS. I can go on YouTube right now and criticize the government without fear of reprisal unless I violate the site's terms of service, which is not the same as the government arresting me for what I say. If I've got my own video hosting service, I don't even have to worry about violating terms of service, much less armed agents of the State taking me into custody for sharing my opinions online.

You cannot try to claim that the Second Amendment isn't a second-class right while also arguing that restricting it to the technology of a bygone era and not applying that same so-called logic to everything else. You just can't. Not and get away with it, anyway.

So now we stand here, with El-Sayed as the latest mind to think he's got the answer to gun control, only for us to once again obliterate his position with a pesky little thing called facts.

Editor’s Note: The radical Left will stop at nothing to enact their extreme gun control agenda and strip us of our Second Amendment rights.

Help us continue to report on and expose the Democrats’ gun-grabbing schemes. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.