Abdul El-Sayed Caught Claiming Second Amendment Protects Muskets

Abdul El-Sayed Strip Gun Rights Activist Caught on Video Claiming Second Amendment Protects Muskets Only

Abdul El-Sayed, a Democratic figure and former Michigan gubernatorial candidate, was captured on video making sweeping claims that the Second Amendment protects only muskets and that modern firearms fall outside constitutional protection. The remarks, shared widely on social media, have drawn sharp criticism from gun rights supporters who view them as evidence of a broader effort to redefine the amendment out of existence.

In the clip, El-Sayed invoked originalism to argue that the Constitution must be interpreted in the context in which it was written. He stated that when the founders promised the right to bear arms, they had muskets, and therefore everyone should have equal rights to a musket. The comment reflects a narrow reading that ties constitutional protections exclusively to 18th-century technology.

Abdul El-Sayed thinks that the 2nd Amendment only protects your right to own a musket…

If given power, he would vote to strip Americans of their 2nd Amendment rights.

pic.twitter.com/zPLEq4eOfx

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) October 20, 2026

El-Sayed went on to describe the Bill of Rights as a compromise intended to protect people from government tyranny and claimed the Second Amendment was enacted through the Coast Guard and state militias. He criticized what he called extreme interpretations, saying some people want to interpret the rest of the Constitution in original terms but treat the Second Amendment as allowing any gun for anyone, anywhere, at any time. He called that reading inconsistent with any interpretation of the Constitution.

The video continued with El-Sayed asking whether weapons built just to kill as many people as possible ought to be publicly available. These remarks align with the position that the amendment’s protections are narrowly confined to founding-era arms and subject to broad modern restrictions.

Conservative observers note that this reasoning echoes longstanding efforts to reinterpret the Second Amendment in ways that would permit incremental limits on modern firearms. The transcript shows El-Sayed explicitly rejecting the idea that the Constitution protects broad access to contemporary weapons while tying the right to historical militia structures rather than individual self-defense.

Gun rights supporters maintain that the Second Amendment affirms an individual right to keep and bear firearms for self-defense, a position reinforced by the text of the amendment and historical practice. The Supreme Court has ruled that the right is not limited to founding-era technology, just as the First Amendment protects speech on the internet and television, not only printed pamphlets.

El-Sayed’s framing treats the right to bear arms as a relic tied exclusively to outdated technology and collective militia functions. His reference to the Coast Guard and state militias as the mechanism for enacting the Second Amendment contradicts the individual rights framework established in legal precedent.

The clip has fueled concerns that individuals holding these positions would support legislation or court challenges aimed at narrowing or eliminating protections for commonly owned firearms. El-Sayed’s comments provide the clearest evidence of his position on the issue, presenting the musket-era limit as the logical outcome of originalist reasoning.

The remarks reflect a broader divide over whether the right to bear arms evolves with technology or remains fixed to founding-era conditions. El-Sayed’s direct statements leave little ambiguity about where he stands on firearms policy and constitutional interpretation.

Conservatives argue that accepting El-Sayed’s logic would render the Second Amendment meaningless in modern America. If the right to bear arms applies only to muskets, then the government could prohibit every firearm developed after 1791 without violating the Constitution. That interpretation, they contend, would effectively strip Americans of their constitutional protections.

The video presents El-Sayed’s arguments without qualification, and he offers no acknowledgment of the individual rights interpretation or the legal precedent that recognizes firearms ownership for self-defense. His focus on militia structures and founding-era weapons suggests a framework that would permit sweeping restrictions on modern arms.

Gun rights advocates view remarks like these as confirmation that certain political figures seek to redefine the Second Amendment in ways that would allow confiscation or severe limits on firearms ownership. The clip underscores the stakes of the debate over constitutional interpretation and the future of the right to keep and bear arms.