The Second Amendment

The second amendment identifies an individual right to keep and bear arms which predates the US Constitition. Anyone who has read the Federalist Papers knows this.

We know that there is an individual right to bear arms present in the second amendment. The questions are, the scope and purpose of the individual right, the application of that right to the states, and the level of constitutional scrutiny required for federal and state laws which affect or limit personal rights on guns. In other words, what guns, maintained how, and carried when?

I'd be interested in discussing the federalist papers. For example in this often quote mined statement from James Madison, it seems clear that the right to bear arms is closely related to the benefits of having a state militia, with state officials in charge. Why is so obvious that Madison's statement is inconsistent with the state having the right to pass gun control laws..

quote:

---

Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. 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. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. 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.

---

For example in this often quote mined statement from James Madison, it seems clear that the right to bear arms is closely related to the benefits of having a state militia, with state officials in charge.

I don't get that from the quote, I guess, so "clear" seems a bit of an overstatement. This seems to be Madison affirming that widespread arms ownership by the people would "speedily overturn" the despotic thrones of Europe (or, presumably, anywhere else.) The precise view so recently lampooned by some here. I don't see any support, here, for the notion that the right to arms is something Madison viewed as appropriate only for militia members. The view implied here, it seems, isn't that militia membership should be a pre-requisite for the ownership of arms, but that the popular ownership of arms is a prerequisite for being able to form a militia.

"clear" seems a bit of an overstatement

Fair enough.

The view implied here, it seems, isn't that militia membership should be a pre-requisite for the ownership of arms, but that the popular ownership of arms is a prerequisite for being able to form a militia.

Yes, but even that would tie the right to bear arms closely to the benefits of having a state militia.

The precise view so recently lampooned by some here

Not quite. The idea lampooned here is that the purpose of the 2nd amendment was to empower individuals or small groups would take on the federal government and that such a need justifies individuals having matching fire power at home. Some people even expressed the idea that democracy could not exist without this matching power. Jon expanded on that idea to argue that the Wilmington Massacre was democracy in action.

Those ideas are quite a bit different from a state militia using officers trained by the state of South Carolina to organize a resistance.

STRAG writes: Frankly if democracy is ever forcibly eliminated in the US it won't be by the government. It will be eliminated by a mass of gun nuts who decide that the elected government isn't white, homophobic or right wing enough for their tastes......

Straggler prophesized that in 2012.

M'eh, . . . lucky guess.

Fortunately there are also a VERY large liberal/progressive group that are also gun owners.

Speaking of guns, this lock down/hibernation period has let me give SPA Days to many of my less often used firearms. It's been fun.

Blimey. That’s a blast from the past. But yeah. The Tea Party lot as it was then or the MAGA mob mob as it is now - These are the dangerous misguided zealots who, righteous in their perverted patriotism as they are, would be most likely to take the US from democracy to despotism. Fortunately the US does seem to have survived the test of Trump with democracy intact. But it’s a reminder to us all of how these things can occur.