The Ultimate Firearms Destination for the Gun Lifestyle

1776 United: Censoring the Second Amendment

There's something strange about the way we talk about censorship. The word itself bears negativity like a bad omen. Being accused of censorship produces a loud response, but it often goes unchallenged behind closed doors. Censorship itself produces a suspicion: what are they hiding from us? And the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.  1776 United is, at first look, an apparel company that isn't shy about what it believes. This has long been a virtue in human history, but that boldness has had consequences. This time, the censorship didn't come for their opinion, rather it went straight for the actual Second Amendment itself.

An event took place this week where the quiet part was said too loudly. When we talk about censorship, we often think of someone reading two opinions about a subject, and deciding which one gets to be read by others. Another way we think about censorship is when true information that would seriously impact society is hidden in order to protect a status quo or motivate a certain outcome. And when we think about censorship and guns, what we typically expect is discrimination against firearms content by limiting its reach through artificial barriers and obstacles.

second amendment censored screenshot

But a kind of censorship we didn't expect took place this week when independent fact-checkers decided to place warning labels on the actual Second Amendment itself, hiding it behind a fact-checking statement saying the included content is false. 1776 United decided to run some tests on this, and here's the story:


How and when did the Censorship of 1776 United start?

We noticed a big push last year. We call those who represent our brand our Militia so that we don't have to call them ambassadors or influencers. But when in October (of 2020) an actual militia in Michigan was plotting to kidnap the Governor, Facebook went on a banning spree for anything that had the term militia. At that time my personal account and my manager's accounts were permanently disabled. We tried to appeal it, and were told we couldn't. We quickly realized our closed group for ambassadors and a private fan group of 15,000 people were both deleted.

Our ambassador's personal Facebook and Instagram pages were getting taken down left and right because they basically had the term “militia” in their profile. We lost access to our Facebook page, half a million followers, and luckily our marketing company still had access to our Facebook ads.

After January 6th, 2021, our jokes and memes were getting flagged as fake news and later that week the whole Facebook Page disappeared, with no explanation or reason. This included the personal profiles and groups: no explanation to date. That hurt us because we rely on Facebook for a large portion of our sales.

Somehow our Instagram is still up and running. With HR127 being brought forward in early February of 2021, somebody tipped me off to a very small page where the phrase of the Second Amendment was being censored.  So we tried to replicate what we saw with an experiment. On Monday the 15th of February, First I posted a screenshot of the censored post, and it was fact-checked and censored behind the fact-check wall. Then I took a screenshot of the actual Second Amendment on Google and the same thing happened.

They were trying to tie it back to some misquoting of George Washington. They were saying the Second Amendment was fact-checked as not true. I'm not sure if it was caused by an algorithm or not, but it happened.

How have you pivoted to get around Censorship?

We are refocusing on our Ambassador platform. We are building a community outside of the typical social media platforms. We're also looking at new social media platforms as well. We're basically acting like Facebook doesn't exist anymore, and our Instagram ROI has been dropping dramatically, so we're not putting the bulk of our efforts there. We're not focusing on one platform at a time, instead, we're focusing on the ambassadors. We're interested in anyone, no matter how many followers.

We're worried about what comes next, so we are putting our efforts into people, not just programs.

We had a t-shirt design that was not made public, that had the Georgia state flag on it. We never made it available for purchase. Shopify took it down without telling us why. The Georgia state flag has the confederate flag as part of it.

What was the Explanation that the Fact Checkers used when they put the Second Amendment behind a fact check wall?

They eventually took the fact-checking wall down but if you can still find the page, there is a statement loosely attributed to George Washington put beneath a quoting of the Second Amendment. The whole thing is then listed as false, and that was applied to the Instagram Posts of the Second Amendment.


The article used to justify marking posts containing the text of the Second Amendment as containing false information pointed to a previously made challenge of spurious quotation attributed to George Washington. While the quote itself might be in question, using it to place a form of censorship on the Constitution by hiding it behind a soft wall itself carries a dubious weight.

unequal treatment of misquotes

Another example of the dangers of censorship is shown when the same obvious misquote is applied to two different people, and only one is fact-checked as false.

Censorship has been a hot topic for some time now, and more than ever, we're faced with asking the question: What do we mean by censorship, and what can we do about it? Part of the problem of censorship is the reliance on other institutions, for if someone has the ability to pick and choose what information is seen, heard, and made available, that is a form of power that cannot be taken lightly. The solution on a national or international level is one heavy question, one that we continue to face, answer, and engage with.

But part of the solution to the problem of censorship is similar to the problem of politics: we need to pay serious attention to our own choices, and that means holding ourselves accountable not only to our virtues, but how we act on them. 1776 United is doing this by deliberately seeking ways to be less reliant on platforms that have shown to be unreliable. Instead, they are building on foundations they believe to be stronger.

1776 United can be found on their website at https://1776united.com/ 

Or on Instagram (for now) at https://www.instagram.com/1776united/

RECOIL has it's own solution to Censorship, and it has a benefit to you as well. By subscribing to RECOIL, CONCEALMENT, or OFFRID, you can have premium reviews, how-to's, and more delivered to your door, for less than the off-the-shelf price.

Support us and the 2nd Amendment and get 25% off a 1-year subscription to any of our firearms titles

Use any of the links below to subscribe to RECOIL, OFFGRID, CONCEALMENT, or Gun Digest and you'll get 25% off from us to say thanks for your support. This works on all our titles.


More on Censorship




6 responses to “1776 United: Censoring the Second Amendment”

  1. Lee Harant says:

    Lie cheat steal. Thats the only way they can succeed. A well armed citizenry is a threat to an oppressive government – the whole basis for the second amendment which is why they have to lie and distort and deceive regarding this powerful amendment and the entire Constitution. Never ever forget – the democrats hate the Constitution because it limits what the government can do to the citizens.

  2. Rekaksky says:

    Now more than ever, we need to have someone to build and support alternative non-bias platforms. We still need to do a regular post on, then attract more to go the alternatives.

  3. David Rayburn says:

    Gab.com is a free speech social media site. I’ve been a member for 3 yrs. You should check it out.

  4. Scott(ducattiscotty)Dean says:

    Gab dot-com do seem to be the place of everybody flocking to. A lot of us are on telegram also but they’re starting to let the schills in.

  5. Henry says:

    The more I see of this, the more I appreciate Matt Brecken’s insight that the most effective solution will be to “re-educate” the media.

    https://web.archive.org/web/20190601184543/https://westernrifleshooters.wordpress.com/2012/09/11/what-i-saw-at-the-coup/

    Of course, Facebook and Twitter now have to be included in with “the media,” as well as the people who censored the original work at that URL off the original website where it appeared.

  6. Jay Dee says:

    Big Gun Control have always had an animus towards the Second Amendment, believing that it prevents them from passing common sense gun control; i.e. banning the private ownership of any and every sort of weapon not the least guns. Gun rights proponents defend the Second Amendment as creating their rights to keep and bear arms. Frankly both are wrong.

    The Second Amendment is actually quite clever. It says several things openly and two things that are implied. Read the Second Amendment the way a lawyer or bureaucrat would read it. Here it is from Congress.gov.

    “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.”

    Most people today are confused by the terms “well-regulated” and “militia”. These are archaic terms that have changed over the years. Today, “well-regulated” means to apply increasing bureaucratic oversight until the activity ceases. In the 1790s, “well-regulated” meant smooth or well-practiced. One of the first dictionaries used the example; “A ballet dancer’s movements are smooth and well- regulated.”

    People today confuse militia with military. When the Second Amendment was written the militia was and still is the whole of the adult population; anyone who can volunteer or be drafted into community service. Remember the Cajun Navy that sprang up after Hurricane Katrina? Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson & George Washington would call them a militia. Who is the militia? You are and I am.

    So a free government requires the adult population to be practiced in the use of various equipment including firearms. Would we have been upset if the state of Louisiana attempted to confiscate the boats in use by the Cajun Navy because they were infringing on government efforts to rescue people? After all, they were doing this without government permission. They were unregulated and uninspected and, and,.. Well you get the point.

    The second part says several things equally interesting. First it says that the right to keep and bear arms exists. It doesn’t create the right. It already exists The Second Amendment tells the government not to mess with this right.

    Here is what is left unsaid but nevertheless implied. Can a government that nevertheless chooses to infringe on these rights be considered a free state? How does one decide? I recommend rereading our Declaration of Independence as closely as you just read the Second Amendment. Look at the long list of government misdeeds that finally persuaded the colonists to declare independence. Can a reasonable person argue that our current federal government is tallying up a similar list of misdeeds that requires action? Think about it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

View Comments

  • Lie cheat steal. Thats the only way they can succeed. A well armed citizenry is a threat to an oppressive government - the whole basis for the second amendment which is why they have to lie and distort and deceive regarding this powerful amendment and the entire Constitution. Never ever forget - the democrats hate the Constitution because it limits what the government can do to the citizens.

  • Now more than ever, we need to have someone to build and support alternative non-bias platforms. We still need to do a regular post on, then attract more to go the alternatives.

  • Gab dot-com do seem to be the place of everybody flocking to. A lot of us are on telegram also but they're starting to let the schills in.

  • Big Gun Control have always had an animus towards the Second Amendment, believing that it prevents them from passing common sense gun control; i.e. banning the private ownership of any and every sort of weapon not the least guns. Gun rights proponents defend the Second Amendment as creating their rights to keep and bear arms. Frankly both are wrong.

    The Second Amendment is actually quite clever. It says several things openly and two things that are implied. Read the Second Amendment the way a lawyer or bureaucrat would read it. Here it is from Congress.gov.

    "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."

    Most people today are confused by the terms “well-regulated” and “militia”. These are archaic terms that have changed over the years. Today, “well-regulated” means to apply increasing bureaucratic oversight until the activity ceases. In the 1790s, “well-regulated” meant smooth or well-practiced. One of the first dictionaries used the example; “A ballet dancer’s movements are smooth and well- regulated.”

    People today confuse militia with military. When the Second Amendment was written the militia was and still is the whole of the adult population; anyone who can volunteer or be drafted into community service. Remember the Cajun Navy that sprang up after Hurricane Katrina? Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson & George Washington would call them a militia. Who is the militia? You are and I am.

    So a free government requires the adult population to be practiced in the use of various equipment including firearms. Would we have been upset if the state of Louisiana attempted to confiscate the boats in use by the Cajun Navy because they were infringing on government efforts to rescue people? After all, they were doing this without government permission. They were unregulated and uninspected and, and,.. Well you get the point.

    The second part says several things equally interesting. First it says that the right to keep and bear arms exists. It doesn’t create the right. It already exists The Second Amendment tells the government not to mess with this right.

    Here is what is left unsaid but nevertheless implied. Can a government that nevertheless chooses to infringe on these rights be considered a free state? How does one decide? I recommend rereading our Declaration of Independence as closely as you just read the Second Amendment. Look at the long list of government misdeeds that finally persuaded the colonists to declare independence. Can a reasonable person argue that our current federal government is tallying up a similar list of misdeeds that requires action? Think about it.

Subscribe to the Free
Newsletter