For those that carry Guns and Overlanding
- Thread starter The Artisan
- Start date
- Status
Sigh, you're citing 2 Articles of the Constitution (which deals with the executive and legislative branch), neither of which actually limit the 2nd Amendment or the state's right to have a militia.
Section 2 (Article 2) discusses how the President is Commander and Chief of all armed forces (including the militia "when called into the actual Service of the United States"). Nowhere does it state that the existence of the militia or the individual right to bare arms (which are two separate issues) is predicated on the President's decision and/or authorization. States can, and historically have, activated their own militia's without the President's approval (state emergencies, internal conflict, public order, ect.).
Section 8 (of Article 1) discusses the powers given to the Federal Congress, including its ability to organize, arm, and call forth a militia. The Congress organized and funded the militia, while the President commanded it (when a crisis arose). Again, nowhere does it state that the 2nd Amendment right or the state's ability to have a militia is predicated upon the Federal Congress' approval. It was implicitly understood that states had military forces of their own (they still do if you consider how the National Guard and state milita's are organized today). Those sections were written to determine how those militia's would be funded and commanded when a wartime crisis arose.
The President, and all members of the Congress for that matter, have to abide by the Constitution; that document is intended to limit their powers just as much as it is intended to give them authority. Any illegal behavior by the President in theory results in an impeachment and removal from power (both of which are provisioned for in the Constitution). Any President who refuses to give up his power through such proceedings would have to contend with an uncooperative Congress, uncooperative states and uncooperative citizens. The Constitution doesn't spell out a blueprint for an armed revolution, but the implicit reasons for having those checks and balances of power at the federal, state and individual levels are clear enough, especially to those who just finished overthrowing a tyrannical government.
Moreover, consider that among all the amendments that deal with individual rights, the one pertaining to firearm ownership is listed 2nd. Not 3rd, not 5th, not 10th, but 2nd, right after the amendment which guarantees the individual's rights of freedom of speech, religion, and assembly. The right to bare arms was not assigned the 9th amendment's vague protection of un-enumerated rights, but rather was important enough that the writers decided it should placed right along side the amendment which enumerates the basic human rights.
Consider that the 10th amendment deliberately describes that any powers not specifically given to the Federal government by the Constitution are left to the states and the people.
And consider that in order for any changes to be made to the Constitution (the supreme law of the land), 3/4th's of the states must ratify said changes after they have already been approved by the Federal Congress.
You took 2 snippets of a lengthy legal document. Read that document in its entirety (to include the amendments) and you'll see that the 'right to bare arms' and the states' ability to have militias were not predicated on a President's decision. Insurrection and external invasion were very real threats during the early years of this country. But they weren't the only threats Constitutional authors were guarding against. If the authors of the Constitution had truly wanted to eliminate any and all possibility of a popular uprising, they could have struck the 2nd Amendment off from the Bill of Rights and they could have explicitly outlawed personal firearm ownership via Federal law....but they didn't.
Lamestream media and Libs/Leftists/Dems/Progressives/Socialists opine that the 2A is not an individual right and that courts have not supported that opinion via adjudication. Lets have a quick look at some examples of those cases from the past 200 years. It is plain to me (I’m no lawyer) what the court’s intentions were:
1803: George Tucker, Judge of the Virginia Supreme Court and U.S. District Court of Virginia in I Blackstone COMMENTARIES Sir George Tucker Ed., pg. 300 (App.)
“The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest possible limits...and [when] the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.”
1822: Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251
"For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution."
1846: Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right."
1859: Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402
"The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the "high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and `is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power."
1871: Andrews v. State, 50 Tenn. (3 Heisk) 165, 178
“....the right to keep arms necessarily involves the right to purchase them, to keep them in a state of efficiency for use, and to purchase and provide ammunition suitable for such arms, and to keep them in repair.”
“The rifle of all descriptions, the shot gun, the musket and repeater are such arms; and that under the Constitution the right to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed or forbidden by the legislature.” [ANDREWS V. STATE; 50 TENN. 165, 179, 8 AM. REP. 8, 14 (TENNESSEE SUPREME COURT)]
1876: The Supreme Court, in U.S. v. Cruikshank (92 U.S. 542)
Recognized that the right to arms preexisted the Constitution. The Court stated that the right to arms "is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."
1878: Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52, at 54
"To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm . . . is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege."
1921: State vs. Kerner, 181 N.C. 574, 107 S.E. 222, at 224
"The maintenance of the right to bear arms is a most essential one to every free people and should not be whittled down by technical constructions."
1922: People vs. Zerillo, 219 Mich. 635, 189 N.W. 927, at 928
"The provision in the Constitution granting the right to all persons to bear arms is a limitation upon the power of the Legislature to enact any law to the contrary. The exercise of a right guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be made subject to the will of the sheriff."
2000: U.S. v. Emerson, Let’s fast-forward to the Clinton years of judicial activism and see how an attempt was made to unscrupulously bastardize this long venerated inalienable right by a dangerously anti-gun, anti-constitution administration in this case.
The Clinton-Gore Administration truly viewed our Right to Keep and Bear Arms as a privilige, that can be taken away by the federal government at any time. The attorney representing the government, William Mateja, said that the Second Amendment offers law-abiding U.S. citizens no protections against the government prohibiting them from owning any firearm. Judge William Garwood, one of three judges on the panel that heard arguments, had the following exchange with Mateja:
Judge Garwood: "You are saying that the Second Amendment is consistent with a position that you can take guns away from the public? You can restrict ownership of rifles, pistols and shotguns from all people? Is that the position of the United States?"
Meteja (attorney for the government): "Yes".
Garwood: "Is it the position of the United States that persons who are not in the National Guard are afforded no protections under the Second Amendment?"
Meteja: "Exactly."
Fortunately, the court rejected the Clinton/Gore argument.
After the jackassery of the Clinton Administration’s attempt to limit the right to keep and bear arms, along comes Heller:
2008: District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held in a 5-4 decision that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution applies to federal enclaves and protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
1803: George Tucker, Judge of the Virginia Supreme Court and U.S. District Court of Virginia in I Blackstone COMMENTARIES Sir George Tucker Ed., pg. 300 (App.)
“The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest possible limits...and [when] the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.”
1822: Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251
"For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution."
1846: Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right."
1859: Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402
"The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the "high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and `is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power."
1871: Andrews v. State, 50 Tenn. (3 Heisk) 165, 178
“....the right to keep arms necessarily involves the right to purchase them, to keep them in a state of efficiency for use, and to purchase and provide ammunition suitable for such arms, and to keep them in repair.”
“The rifle of all descriptions, the shot gun, the musket and repeater are such arms; and that under the Constitution the right to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed or forbidden by the legislature.” [ANDREWS V. STATE; 50 TENN. 165, 179, 8 AM. REP. 8, 14 (TENNESSEE SUPREME COURT)]
1876: The Supreme Court, in U.S. v. Cruikshank (92 U.S. 542)
Recognized that the right to arms preexisted the Constitution. The Court stated that the right to arms "is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."
1878: Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52, at 54
"To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm . . . is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege."
1921: State vs. Kerner, 181 N.C. 574, 107 S.E. 222, at 224
"The maintenance of the right to bear arms is a most essential one to every free people and should not be whittled down by technical constructions."
1922: People vs. Zerillo, 219 Mich. 635, 189 N.W. 927, at 928
"The provision in the Constitution granting the right to all persons to bear arms is a limitation upon the power of the Legislature to enact any law to the contrary. The exercise of a right guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be made subject to the will of the sheriff."
2000: U.S. v. Emerson, Let’s fast-forward to the Clinton years of judicial activism and see how an attempt was made to unscrupulously bastardize this long venerated inalienable right by a dangerously anti-gun, anti-constitution administration in this case.
The Clinton-Gore Administration truly viewed our Right to Keep and Bear Arms as a privilige, that can be taken away by the federal government at any time. The attorney representing the government, William Mateja, said that the Second Amendment offers law-abiding U.S. citizens no protections against the government prohibiting them from owning any firearm. Judge William Garwood, one of three judges on the panel that heard arguments, had the following exchange with Mateja:
Judge Garwood: "You are saying that the Second Amendment is consistent with a position that you can take guns away from the public? You can restrict ownership of rifles, pistols and shotguns from all people? Is that the position of the United States?"
Meteja (attorney for the government): "Yes".
Garwood: "Is it the position of the United States that persons who are not in the National Guard are afforded no protections under the Second Amendment?"
Meteja: "Exactly."
Fortunately, the court rejected the Clinton/Gore argument.
After the jackassery of the Clinton Administration’s attempt to limit the right to keep and bear arms, along comes Heller:
2008: District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held in a 5-4 decision that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution applies to federal enclaves and protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
DiploStrat
Expedition Leader
Slightly dubious source! http://ariwatch.com/WhosWho.htm#RobertTracinski ;-)
To the rest, I have, in fact, read the entire Constitution. (And the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights.) And, for what it may be worth a Batchelor's degree in history, including US. Let us just say that scholars differ.
Have a great day! ;-)
DiploStrat
Expedition Leader
aaaslayer
Active member
Not about to read through 41 pages of what seems like supporters and anti gun folks going back and forth about guns and carrying. So to stay on topic, here's a question, what are ya'll carrying out in the middle of nowhere?
I was thinking a pistol, a Glock 34 is what I have and prefer over a compact/sub compact. I was also thinking a carbine or AR pistol. I really like the idea of carrying a pistol caliber carbine. Like a Keltec S2k that will accept Glock mags too so you don't have to carry for your sidearm AND your rifle. Something compact for sure. Keltec S2k, a CZ Scorpion EVO, AR9, suggestions? As you can tell from the calibers selected, I am not overlanding where there is huge game. Looking for protection more from the crazies, meth addicts out in the desert, any crazy bastards that want to harm me or my wife really. The world is full of crazies nowadays, can't be too safe. I usually carry a 357 magnum Airlite PD for up close in a IWB holster, and an AR pistol in 223/556 in the pack, but that gets heavy. I don't like to walk around with it on a sling because I fear someone will see me and think the worst, try to hurt me or call the cops on me. So you'll never know I'm carrying unless I tell you. Let's stay on topic, what are you guys carrying? And if you don't like the topic, get out. Simple.
I was thinking a pistol, a Glock 34 is what I have and prefer over a compact/sub compact. I was also thinking a carbine or AR pistol. I really like the idea of carrying a pistol caliber carbine. Like a Keltec S2k that will accept Glock mags too so you don't have to carry for your sidearm AND your rifle. Something compact for sure. Keltec S2k, a CZ Scorpion EVO, AR9, suggestions? As you can tell from the calibers selected, I am not overlanding where there is huge game. Looking for protection more from the crazies, meth addicts out in the desert, any crazy bastards that want to harm me or my wife really. The world is full of crazies nowadays, can't be too safe. I usually carry a 357 magnum Airlite PD for up close in a IWB holster, and an AR pistol in 223/556 in the pack, but that gets heavy. I don't like to walk around with it on a sling because I fear someone will see me and think the worst, try to hurt me or call the cops on me. So you'll never know I'm carrying unless I tell you. Let's stay on topic, what are you guys carrying? And if you don't like the topic, get out. Simple.
aaaslayer
Active member
I keep a loaded shotgun in the truck always. And my side arm follows me everywhere on trails. I carry occasionally an AR pistol in the pack but it can be a pain sometimes due to the weight and space it takes up. I'm glad people are smart enough to carry. Like said before, better to have and not need, than to need and not have. If you decide not to carry, I hope you never have a need for it out in the wilderness. I recommend a Keltec S2k as well. Folds in half, easy to backpack, or hell even a Ruger 1022 Takedown. With proper shot placement you can take down most threats with the exception of larger game.
CSG
Explorer
I'm quite aware, thanks. I was posing a question to people who DON'T understand the intent of the 2nd Amendment which has always been quite clear - Individual citizens have the right to keep and bear arms without infringement by the federal government.
Some people claim that "well-regulated" means laws regulating who can keep or own firearms or that it refers to state militias run by the government of that state. It does not. It means well running, in order, etc. as some posters rightly stated.
Some people claim that "well-regulated" means laws regulating who can keep or own firearms or that it refers to state militias run by the government of that state. It does not. It means well running, in order, etc. as some posters rightly stated.
dwh
Tail-End Charlie
Under the control of the Congress and the President...in certain conditions.
"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States"
"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;"
It is not the the President who normally decides to "call out The Guard", it's the Governor. IF the President does call the National Guard into "the service of the United States" (and not just in their normal service to a single state), THEN the President becomes CIC of those specific Guard units. (At least, that's what the Constitution actually _says_...if not the way it's normally practiced.)
It is the states who appoint the officers, and the states who are responsible to see to it that the Guard is trained up to federal military standards:
"reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"
The militia was not supposed to be part of the Federal Military unless called upon to join them for a specific reason. (And invading Iraq or Afghanistan was never supposed to be one of those reasons.)
Sorry, Fred...but no, it isn't silly. Madison specifically addressed this point in Federalist 46:
"Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger."
In conclusion the of that article, he said:
"Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it. The argument under the present head may be put into a very concise form, which appears altogether conclusive. Either the mode in which the federal government is to be constructed will render it sufficiently dependent on the people, or it will not. On the first supposition, it will be restrained by that dependence from forming schemes obnoxious to their constituents. On the other supposition, it will not possess the confidence of the people, and its schemes of usurpation will be easily defeated by the State governments, who will be supported by the people. On summing up the considerations stated in this and the last paper, they seem to amount to the most convincing evidence, that the powers proposed to be lodged in the federal government are as little formidable to those reserved to the individual States, as they are indispensably necessary to accomplish the purposes of the Union; and that all those alarms which have been sounded, of a meditated and consequential annihilation of the State governments, must, on the most favorable interpretation, be ascribed to the chimerical fears of the authors of them. [* next post ]
Hamilton also made essentially the same point point in Federalist 29:
"But though the scheme of disciplining [means military training - dwh] the whole nation must be abandoned as mischievous or impracticable; yet it is a matter of the utmost importance that a well-digested plan should, as soon as possible, be adopted for the proper establishment of the militia. The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate extent, upon such principles as will really fit them for service in case of need. By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
That's technically true. But in practical terms we do have a standing army. Certainly the appropriations have to be renewed annually, but I'm certain you can no more than I conceive of any circumstance under which they would not be renewed. An army which has to be re-funded every year, but which is always re-funded and will never be de-funded or disbanded is, prima facie, a standing army.
(And to all, the Bill of Rights was not part of the original Constitution, which was ratified in 1788. The Bill of Rights was proposed later in 1789 by the First Congress and ratified in 1791. The original bundle of amendments proposed had 12 articles. Articles 3 though 12 became the Bill of Rights. Article 2 eventually became the 27th Amendment 200 years later in 1992. Article 1 was approved by Congress, but has still never been ratified by enough states to be added to the Constitution.
The Bill of Rights was added because anti-federalists at the constitutional convention refused to endorse the proposed Constitution without it. They wanted one more constitutional convention specifically to make amendments and add a Bill of Rights before it was sent for ratification. But there were enough federalists and they got the Constitution ratified without a Bill of Rights. Madison, in the first House of Representatives, made the first proposal for a Bill of Rights because he had to. The anti-federalists had out-maneuvered him in the election for the House, and the only way Madison could win the election was to promise to introduce a Bill of Rights.
So let's not forget that we have a Bill of Rights because the anti-federalists among The Founding Fathers fought to limit the power of the Federal Government.)
[******? 10,000 character limit on posts? Freakin' millennial tweet raised short attention span rearing its ugly head? To be continued...}
Last edited:
dwh
Tail-End Charlie
[*]
(To digress: In my opinion, Madison's major mistake in that paragraph is this:
"Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it."
He didn't believe it would ever happen. But today, it has long ago already happened. ("Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence. The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite Domination and for theories of Biased Pluralism, but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or Majoritarian Pluralism.") https://www.cambridge.org/core/jour...age-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B
He made another similar mistake in the previous paper, Federalist 45:
"The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security. As the former periods will probably bear a small proportion to the latter, the State governments will here enjoy another advantage over the federal government. The more adequate, indeed, the federal powers may be rendered to the national defense, the less frequent will be those scenes of danger which might favor their ascendancy over the governments of the particular States."
Whoops. Wrong again. Today, the U.S. is in a state of perpetual war. It was noticed by the corporate media for a little while a few years ago. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...president-obama-states-of-emergency/16851775/
So Madison's supposition that the States would have an advantage during times of peace has been negated - there ARE NO times of peace anymore.)
(To digress: In my opinion, Madison's major mistake in that paragraph is this:
"Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it."
He didn't believe it would ever happen. But today, it has long ago already happened. ("Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence. The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite Domination and for theories of Biased Pluralism, but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or Majoritarian Pluralism.") https://www.cambridge.org/core/jour...age-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B
He made another similar mistake in the previous paper, Federalist 45:
"The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security. As the former periods will probably bear a small proportion to the latter, the State governments will here enjoy another advantage over the federal government. The more adequate, indeed, the federal powers may be rendered to the national defense, the less frequent will be those scenes of danger which might favor their ascendancy over the governments of the particular States."
Whoops. Wrong again. Today, the U.S. is in a state of perpetual war. It was noticed by the corporate media for a little while a few years ago. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...president-obama-states-of-emergency/16851775/
So Madison's supposition that the States would have an advantage during times of peace has been negated - there ARE NO times of peace anymore.)
Last edited:
DieselRanger
Well-known member
I'm sorry, what's dubious about this source? I find nothing of concern in the "Who's Who" you post. He accurately summarizes Federalist 46 and the reasoning for the 2nd Amendment. I've read the entirety of our founding documents as well, including the historical context of many of our nation's key tenets as described in The Federalist Papers. Debate the points, not the source. The right of the citizenry to keep and bear arms serves as a deterrence against tyranny, and a last resort to counter it, should it come to pass.
Scholars differ, but scholars don't interpret the Constitutionality of the laws of the land - the Supreme Court of the US does, and theirs is the only opinion that matters, no matter how divided the opinions are - the majority rules when it comes to SCOTUS. That's precisely how it was set up and precisely how it's supposed to work. And the Founding Fathers speak for themselves on the issue, as does one of history's most notorious abusers of said right:
" ... to disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
-- George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380
"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms."
-- Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787. ME 6:373, Papers 12:356
"[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
--James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 46
"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress ... to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.... "
--Samuel Adams
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well-armed and well-regulated militia, being the best security of a free country ...The people of many States have thought it necessary to raise barriers against power in all forms and departments of Government...But whatever may be the form which the several States have adopted in making declarations in favor of particular rights, the great object in view is to limit and qualify the powers of Government, by excepting out the grant of power those cases in which the Government ought not to act, or to act only in a particular mode. They point these exceptions sometimes against the abuse of the executive power, sometimes against the legislative, and sometimes against the community itself...."
-- James Madison, I Annals of Congress 451; 454, June 8, 1789
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing."
-- Adolph Hitler, Hitler's Secret Conversations 403
- Status