The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution 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.”
But now, 250 years after America declared its independence from Britain, Abdul El-Sayed, the Democrat running for U.S. Senate in Michigan, is unloading a bizarre twist to the words on the national document, saying it only applies to “muskets.”
During a campaign appearance, the Muslim doctor who has never actually had a medical practice, stated: “The second Amendment, just so we all are clear, even the most conservative folks they hew to this idea called originalism. And originalism is the idea that you should interpret the Constitution in the context in which the Constitution was written.
“When they promised the right to bear arms, they had muskets. So, yeah, everyone should have like equal rights to a musket.”
WATCH:
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
He then got into the intention of the Bill of Rights in which the Second Amendment is listed, saying: “The Bill of Rights was about a compromise to protect people from government tyranny under our Constitution because the people who were voting to ratify that Constitution had just lived under government tyranny from the British. So the idea was that you had the right to bear arms against your government should they become tyrannous.
“And the way we enacted that was … we built the Coast Guard and state militias that are supposed to be able to protect. Now, a lot of folks want to interpret all the rest of the Constitution in the original term and then want to interpret the Second Amendment in the most extreme version possible. And they tell us that the Constitution says that you can have any gun for anyone, anywhere at any time, which is just not consistent with any interpretation of the Constitution at all.”
The Democrat did not happen to mention that in the 2008 case of the District of Columbia v. Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled: “Private citizens have the right under the Second Amendment to possess an ordinary type of weapon and use it for lawful, historically established situations such as self-defense in a home, even when there is no relationship to a local militia.”
El-Sayed’s remarks are triggering a firestorm of reaction online.
Talk-radio host Hugh Hewitt wondered: “Has Abdul El-Sayed given up and switched to making sure the hard left shows up so he won’t be embarrassed? Because Michigan is a solid Second Amendment state with lots and lots of gun owners. Between 35% and 40% of Michigan households have guns.”
Others stated:
“Summary: He is OK with amending the 2nd Amendment to only allow people to purchase muskets. Translated: Confiscation of all other firearms.”
“He’s trying to convince us to get rid of guns while he’s being investigated for terrorism, and the Muslim world is taking over the rest of the world, including France and Belgium right now. Coincidence? Definitely not. That’s their biggest obstacle.”
“A radical jihadist Islamist extremist is going to tell you what the founding fathers intended with the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Some jihadist from a 3rd world sh**hole is going to tell you what your rights are. Let that sink in.”
“Literally every gun is built to kill as many people as possible within certain size, caliber, or weight constraints. What a ridiculous statement.”
“He has no right to free speech using electrical amplification and can only move about freely if he walks, rides a horse or a steam train.”
Follow Joe on X @JoeKovacsNews
