Lott "Historical examination of the right to bear arms, from English antecedents to the drafting of the Second Amendment, bears proof that the right to bear arms has consistently been, and should still be, construed as an individual right.
If the federal government can command the aid of the militia in those emergencies which call for the military arm in support of the civil magistrate, it can the better dispense with the employment of a different kind of force.
The plain language of the amendment, without attenuate inferences therefrom, shows that the function of the subordinate clause was not to qualify the right, but instead to show why it must be protected. And in that case, the people ought not surely to be precluded from giving most of their confidence where they may discover it to be most due; but even in that case the State governments could have little to apprehend, because it is only within a certain sphere that the federal power can, in the nature of things, be advantageously administered.
Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
Let Congress form the largest army it can possibly create, and it would still be greatly outnumbered by armed citizens answering to State-appointed officers. The Bill of Rights, of course, was proposed to remedy a perceived inadequacy in the original Constitution. And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government. Their fears manifested off of the belief that the Constitution would give the federal government too much power, take away their rights as American born citizens, as well as give the federal government complete control over the judicial system, making it less personal.
Once it became time to begin creating new republics, the people feared going back to the monarchy they once lived under by Great Britain. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.
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. That there may happen cases in which the national government may be necessitated to resort to force cannot be denied.
Additionally, the Founders discussed that the people's opinions can go in different directions and are able to lose track of what is important and relevant when it comes to a forming a regime.
Neil Smith A man with a gun is a citizen. The state has to govern a much smaller group of individuals compared to the federal government so they are able to dig deeper into the more personal lives of the people in their state.
This can be described in the following, "Madison acknowledged that emotional bonds often exacerbated politics, but he also believed that passions could be constructive forces if ruled by any reason".
And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. However, if the amendment truly meant what collective rights advocates propose, then the text would read "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the States to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Experience speaks the same language in this case. The motives on the part of the State governments, to augment their prerogatives by defalcations from the federal government, will be overruled by no reciprocal predispositions in the members.
The debate had, until then, been standing army vs. Not only are Tucker's remarks solid evidence that the militia clause was not intended to restrict the right to keep arms to active militia members, but he speaks of a broad right — Tucker specifically mentions self-defense.
Congress have no power to disarm the militia.The right of the people to keep and bear arms is a well regulated militia. Whenever power is given to the federal government, it must be taken from the people. In its power to regulate the militia, the government has been disenfranchised from infringing on the militia.
References to the Militia in The Federalist Prof. Eugene Volokh, UCLA Law School. The Federalist The Federalist, of course, is the collection of 85 articles in support of the Constitution written by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay under the pseudonym "Publius." The articles were published in in New York newspapers, and obviously didn't mention the Second Amendment, which.
MEPapers "No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."-- Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, ,[C.J. Boyd, Ed., ] "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Publius & Brutus: The Gun Debate. by Keith Lee. In the wake of the horrific tragedy of the Newtown shootings, Without a doubt, Yates, and the other authors of the Anti-Federalist papers, were in favor of an individual’s right to bear arms.
The Federalist Papers. The Federalist Papers Summary No Hamilton January 9, It should be obvious from reading the last few summaries that having a standing army in peace time was a. Federalist No. 46 is an essay by James Madison, the forty-sixth of The Federalist Papers.
It was published on January 29, under the pseudonym Publius, the name under which all The Federalist papers were published.Download