Today we’re going to break down the Tory Act, what it said, what it authorized, and why it matters in 2026 America, where millions still believe in the Constitution, while others believe in a powerful central government that can redefine rights into privileges whenever it wants. And we’re going to connect this directly to the Second Amendment, because the Founders understood something we’re being trained to forget. The Second Amendment covers all bearable arms, not some, not the ones politicians approve of, all bearable arms, because the entire point is to keep power from concentrating in one place. In 1776, America was not unified.

There were people who believed that the colonies were already free by right, endowed by their creator, not granted by kings. And there were people who believed order required loyalty to a distant central authority. And that’s not just a then story, that’s an always story. Because the American argument has always been, do rights come from God or nature, and government is limited? Or do rights come from government, a government that is supreme? Now, the argument didn’t end at Yorktown. It didn’t end with the Constitution, and it sure as hell didn’t end with the Bill of Rights.

It’s the same argument playing out today, here in 2026. The Tory Act, from 250 years ago, was published by Order of the Continental Congress on January 2nd of 1776. And what makes it so interesting is the structure, because it lays out two categories of people. Category 1, the misinformed. And Congress says there are honest and well-meaning but uninformed people who were deceived by ministerial agents. And Congress recommends these people be treated with kindness and attention, and that the controversy should be explained to them. How petitions failed, how reconciliation was rejected, and how the colonies were driven to defend by arms their rights and liberties.

Now, pause right there, because that rhetorical move still exists today. When people defend the Second Amendment, they’re often told they’re not evil, they’re just uneducated. They don’t understand the real meaning. They’ve been radicalized. They fell for propaganda. That exact framing appears in the Tory Act. Some people are redeemable, if they’ll just accept the official narrative. And then there’s category 2, the unworthy and dangerous. But then the act shifts. Congress describes unworthy Americans who sided with the oppressors, who allegedly misrepresented their friends of liberty, and opposed measures formed for preservation and security. And now we get to the part that should make every constitutionalist sit up straight.

Because they recommended a remedy that wasn’t debate. It wasn’t counter-speech. It wasn’t leave them alone. It was this. They ought to be disarmed. And the more dangerous among them should be kept in safe custody, or forced to post-sureties for good behavior. That’s not just social pressure, that’s state power used against political dissenters. And here’s why this matters. This is an early American example of something governments do over and over again. First, they define a political group as a threat. Then they call the threat public safety. They restrict their arms. They justify it as necessary, and label resistance as extremism.

The Toriaq shows us the ancient truth. When a government believes it may be opposed, it wants the opposition disarmed. Now that’s not a uniquely British idea. That’s a power idea. And the founding generation understood that. James Madison, writing in Federalist 46, contrasted America with Europe, and pointed out that the advantage of being armed possessed by Americans, and that governments elsewhere were afraid to trust the people with arms. Now Madison’s point is brutal and simple. Armed citizens change the political math. And that is exactly why the Second Amendment exists as a structural check, like separation of powers, federalism, and free speech.

It’s not there to make you feel good. It’s there to keep government honest. And one of the most abused talking points in modern gun control is the idea that the Second Amendment protects some government controlled militia, and therefore the people can be restricted. But founding era Americans repeatedly described the militia as a body of the people. George Mason asked, who are the militia? And answered, they consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers. And this matters because it collapses the modern trick. If the militia is the people, then the right of the people is not limited to a state run club.

It is the people themselves, armed, capable, and not dependent on the government for permission. Now let’s bring it home to the phrase you specifically want emphasized here if you’re watching here. The Second Amendment covers all bearable arms. If an arm can be born carried by an individual, it is within the category of arms. This is not a fringe view. It’s a logical meaning of the word arms in the founding era. I mean tools that can be carried for defense, duty, and resistance to force. And founding era writers speak about arms as the implements of the soldier, not merely hunting tools.

Kench Cocks, writing in the context of the ratification debates, argued that Congress had no power to disarm the militia, describing their swords and every other terrible implement of the soldier as a birthright of an American. That line is devastating to modern gun control ideology because it rejects the entire premise that military style arms are outside of protection. If the purpose is to keep power from monopolizing force, then, of course, the people’s arms cannot be limited to politically acceptable tools. And Thomas Jefferson, drafting proposed language for Virginia wrote, no free man shall be debarred the use of arms.

So when I say all bearable arms, I’m saying the category is broad by design because the founders intended the people to remain capable. The Tory Act didn’t just recommend disarmament. It also authorized colonial committees, conventions, and councils of safety to call in continental troops to execute these measures. And this is where you should hear modern echoes because the moment political categories become security categories, the state starts treating dissent as a problem to be managed, often with force. And in the Tory Act, those troops were directed to assist local bodies and even placed under their direction while carrying out these actions.

Now, this is one reason that the founders later obsessed over checks and balances. They feared power concentrating and feared the use of armed force as a political tool. And one of the most striking parts of the Tory Act is its warning about retaliation. Congress describes British barbarity, which is burning towns, stirring insurrections, even brutality against prisoners, and acknowledges it could provoke Americans to retaliate. But then it cautions Americans. They said humanity ought to distinguish the brave. Cruelty should find no admission among free people. That is a founding era principle worth repeating today. A free people do not become what they resist.

The right to keep and bear arms is not a license for cruelty. It’s a check against tyranny and a safeguard for liberty. Now, let’s connect the dots to the world we live in today in 2026. Americans are split in a way that should look eerily familiar. America won, constitutionalists. People who believe rights pre-exist government, that the Constitution limits power, that the Bill of Rights is a line in the sand that the state may not cross. Then there’s America too, central power advocates. People who believe that the Constitution is living and flexible, and that government must have expanding authority to manage modern life.

And that second group tends to see the Bill of Rights not as a barrier, but as a set of obstacles. So what happens? The same rhetorical pattern from 1776 returns. First, you’re called misinformed. Then you’re called dangerous. Then the system moves to restrict your ability to resist. Remember, under the Biden Department of Justice, we were all called, you know, all kinds of groups that were extremists because we believed in freedom, or we had a St. Michael, you know, insignia, or we had we the people. I don’t know, where do you see that? But yes, they did that.

They labeled us as dangerous, and they wanted to restrict the ability to resist. And yes, it starts with arms because arms are the last barrier against force. Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 28 warned about usurpation and described what happens when people lack organized local means of defense. He said, the citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, except in their courage and despair. Hamilton’s point is about structure. Local power matters. Decentralization matters, and the people’s capacity absolutely matters. Because when power centralizes, it becomes harder to correct peacefully, and the cost of resistance rises. This is exactly why the Founders built a system where power is divided and checked, and why the Second Amendment exists as part of that architecture.

During the ratification debates, one recurring idea is that liberty depends on an armed populace. A widely cited statement in the Federal farmer writings argues that to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught how to use them, especially when young. This isn’t gun culture, it’s constitutional culture. It’s the belief that the power must never monopolize force. And here’s what makes the Tory Act so valuable as a historical mirror, which is why I’m bringing this to you, because many of you probably have never even heard of it.

The Tory Act shows how quickly political disagreement becomes a security issue. It starts with let’s educate the misinformed, then becomes let’s restrain the unworthy. Then it ends with disarm them, detain them, bind them over for good behavior, and call in troops if needed. Kind of sounds like the ATF. Now, that arc is the arc of centralization. And it’s the same arc that we see in modern politics when bureaucracies claim emergency powers. Remember COVID? Or when courts are asked to balance away rights, like they were doing before the Bruin decision. And administrative agencies rewrite the meaning of constitutional guarantees throughout regulation.

How many years did we report on ATF doing that? Now, if you believe in a limited government, you’ve watched this movie before. The Tory Act of 1776 is not merely an artifact. It’s a warning label. It reminds us that even revolutionaries, people fighting tyranny, can justify disarmament and detention when they believe that the cause requires it. So what is a safeguard? Not good intentions, not promises, not slogans. The safeguard is structure. A constitution that limits power and a bill of rights that declares certain lines may not be crossed. And among those lines is the right that ensures the people remain capable of protecting all the others.

The right to keep bare arms, covering all bearable arms, because liberty requires the people to remain capable. The divide we’re living through now is not new. It’s the same divide America was born into. The question isn’t whether power wants more power. It always does. The question is whether the people remember who they are and what rights actually mean. Because once rights become permissions, you don’t have rights anymore. Guys and gals, I hope this hit home for you. Let me know if this is the first time you’ve ever heard of the Tori act. Hopefully this sparked your interest to read the Tori act.

I’ll pin it down below. And I hope you enjoy the this historical playlist I have put together. There’s a few other I’ll pin the playlist down below. But there’s a lot of work that goes into these. So I hope that you would do me a favor by liking them, sharing them throughout your different groups and other posts. Subscribe to the channel. Make a comment down below. Let me know what you think about this. But most importantly, I hope this sparks the flame of liberty deep within you to read the founding documents again. All of them. The federalist papers, the anti federalist papers, the Tori act, the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence, the US, the US Constitution, all the things that will help us be a stronger nation.

Let me know what you think down below. I appreciate you all. Have a great day. Stay armed. Stay free. I love you all. Take care. Thank you. [tr:trw].

See more of Guns & Gadgets 2nd Amendment News on their Public Channel and the MPN Guns & Gadgets 2nd Amendment News channel.