In Rousseau's Social Contract, he states: "Along with these three kinds of law goes a fourth, most important of all, which is not graven on tablets of marble or brass, but on the hearts of the citizens. This forms the real constitution of the State, takes on every day new powers, when other laws decay or die out, restores them or takes their place, keeps a people in the ways in which it was meant to go, and insensibly replaces authority by the force of habit. I am speaking of morality, of custom, above all of public opinion ; a power unknown to political thinkers, on which none the less success in everything else depends." It would appear the best way to return the states from violating the 2nd amendment is to inform people and sheriffs through flyers. I would like input on the content of the flyer I might have distributed in my area: `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.` - `a free State` = not a tyranny - `A well regulated Militia`, is stated here to indicate it is assumed to arise given the right of the people to bear arms, and it is necessary to ensure a free state. It is not stated as a requisite to the right to bear arms. - `right of the people to keep and bear Arms` there is no restriction on the types of arms here. The guarantee of the right is, in part, intended for fighting/preventing a tyrannical government through the presence and actions of militias. Militias serve this purpose through the potential for widespread guerrilla warfare. The amendment was constructed specifically avoiding making the right to bear arms being predicated on the establishment of a militia. And, let us consider what it means that the right is not predicated on militias. It means one or both of two things: 1. the founders thought predicating the right on militias would give government the tyrannical power of limiting the right through that predication. 2. there are other reasons besides a militia for the right. From the writings of the founders, it is apparent that both of these things were the reasoning. The belief is that rights are given by God or Nature. And, specifically, the right to bear arms reflects the right to pose a threat to anyone/anything that would violate you. And, this presents the question of, "what arms are allowed under the right?" At the time the amendment was written, there existed weapons which might be deemed un-useful in a militia (flails, brass knuckles) - and yet, they were not provided as exceptions to the right to bear arms. At the time the amendment was written, concealment of weapons was also possible at the time the amendment was written, and yet, no exception to the right to bear arms specifying against concealment was provided. At the time the amendment was written, arms included canons, bomb shooting canons, and vessels that had such canons, and yet, these were not provided as exceptions to the right to bear arms. If the founders intent was to restrict the arms in type or manner, this would have been included in the amendment. If it was intended to predicate the right to bear arms on establishing a militia, then the amendment would be written as such. In other words, the 2nd amendment provides the right to bear arms without exception to type or manner. At best, tyranny advocates can argue that the founders did not envision nukes, and thus, it is required in considering nukes that we consider the spirit of the amendment. And, there are two spirits of the amendment: 1. power-in-people-numbers to allow a militia to fight a tyrannical government 2. the right to pose a threat to that which would violate you And, nukes, arguably, are not a power-in-people-numbers weapon. But, tanks are. # Frivolous Arguments `But tanks/rocket launchers/automatic machine guns are dangerous` So are cars, but more so is stupidity and ignorance. There is no constitutionality for the US government to restrict one's actions based on the potential danger to others. `Rocket launchers could kill a lot of people` So can bombs which require very little knowledge and cost. Rocket launchers are substantially more difficult to construct. `A tank could kill a lot of people if it fell into the wrong hands` Do you have any idea how much a tank costs to construct? Tanks are exceptionally expensive, and whoever owns one would probably take efforts to secure it. `Higher lethality weapons would mean more massacres` Apart from government or George Soros funded terrorism, massacres, especially in an unrestricted armed society, would rarely occur.