Are we so Societally Evolved as to render the Constitiution (2nd Amend.) Antiquated...

[BluesLegend]

There is no indication that 'original intent' was stagnant language and thought.

Our right to keep and bar arms is inalienable and self evident, its not granted by the 2nd. According to Jefferson and other prominent thinkers of his time, such statements as “all Men are created equal” and “endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights’ are obviously true. Such statements do not require proof. The “truths” are held to be unquestionable and beyond debate, since their truth is said to be obvious.

I'm not going to touch this one with a 10 foot pole... though I agree in much of the sentiment. lol

I think there's a case to be made. If the gun control crowd get too uppity a ruling like this may come down and the whole thing will blow up in their face.

 

[KeiserC]

There is no indication that 'original intent' was stagnant language and thought.

Our right to keep and bar arms is inalienable and self evident, its not granted by the 2nd. According to Jefferson and other prominent thinkers of his time, such statements as “all Men are created equal” and “endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights’ are obviously true. Such statements do not require proof. The “truths” are held to be unquestionable and beyond debate, since their truth is said to be obvious.

I'm not going to touch this one with a 10 foot pole... though I agree in much of the sentiment. lol

I think there's a case to be made. If the gun control crowd get too uppity a ruling like this may come down and the whole thing will blow up in their face.

I'm just not willing to conflate our God given, Inalienable Rights (life, liberty & pursuit of happiness), with something drawn up by our Founding Fathers (regardless of how auspicious & wise they may have been).

 

[Norman]

A hi-cap. magazine ban has been an issue for decades and it underscores the essential point of contention between the camps of the 'gun rights' & 'anti's'... Does it boil down to the fundamental point of the 2nd Amendment... a check, by 'the people', against tyranny?

Are we so evolved as a Society & Nation that this notion of a check against tyranny... is 'foolish' and a silly relic...? We do (currently) see dozens and dozens of Countries around the world where there is rampant oppression by dictatorships, quasi governments, political parties, royal families... over the freedoms and "inalienable rights" of their people... So are we 'above all that', now well into our 3rd century as a Nation?

House Democrats Push Ban on 'High Capacity' Magazines and 205 Different Firearms

Magazine capacity is perhaps the clearest tangible measure of where our Nation stands on this... After all, what use is an "assault rifle" if it can only be used with 'tiny' capacity mags... Is having an armed citizenry... 'armed commensurately' with that of the 'civilian' authority policing them, a bygone notion? Do our remaining 90's something elder's notions of the Wiemar Republic, no longer apply here...?

We are socially evolved enough to understand it's up to every American to defend the nation and its values.

And there is no better way to do that than as many people owning guns with large magazines, as possible.

By the way, the large magazines amount to shit when it comes to the overall homicide rate, so what would be the purpose of banning them?

 

[KeiserC]

A hi-cap. magazine ban has been an issue for decades and it underscores the essential point of contention between the camps of the 'gun rights' & 'anti's'... Does it boil down to the fundamental point of the 2nd Amendment... a check, by 'the people', against tyranny?

Are we so evolved as a Society & Nation that this notion of a check against tyranny... is 'foolish' and a silly relic...? We do (currently) see dozens and dozens of Countries around the world where there is rampant oppression by dictatorships, quasi governments, political parties, royal families... over the freedoms and "inalienable rights" of their people... So are we 'above all that', now well into our 3rd century as a Nation?

House Democrats Push Ban on 'High Capacity' Magazines and 205 Different Firearms

Magazine capacity is perhaps the clearest tangible measure of where our Nation stands on this... After all, what use is an "assault rifle" if it can only be used with 'tiny' capacity mags... Is having an armed citizenry... 'armed commensurately' with that of the 'civilian' authority policing them, a bygone notion? Do our remaining 90's something elder's notions of the Wiemar Republic, no longer apply here...?

We are socially evolved enough to understand it's up to every American to defend the nation and its values.

And there is no better way to do that than as many people owning guns with large magazines, as possible.

By the way, the large magazines amount to shit when it comes to the overall homicide rate, so what would be the purpose of banning them?

Switzerland has a lot going for it on many fronts... To paraphrase (as I am only cursory aware), men must serve in the Military, upon discharge they are required to keep not one but x 2 firearms in the home... for the protection of home and Nation...(not sure that this is feasible in a non-homogeneous society such as ours though)

 

[BluesLegend]

There is no indication that 'original intent' was stagnant language and thought.

Our right to keep and bar arms is inalienable and self evident, its not granted by the 2nd. According to Jefferson and other prominent thinkers of his time, such statements as “all Men are created equal” and “endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights’ are obviously true. Such statements do not require proof. The “truths” are held to be unquestionable and beyond debate, since their truth is said to be obvious.

I'm not going to touch this one with a 10 foot pole... though I agree in much of the sentiment. lol

I think there's a case to be made. If the gun control crowd get too uppity a ruling like this may come down and the whole thing will blow up in their face.

I'm just not willing to conflate our God given, Inalienable Rights (life, liberty & pursuit of happiness), with something drawn up by our Founding Fathers (regardless of how auspicious & wise they may have been).

The right to defend yourself is an inalienable right.

 

[KeiserC]

There is no indication that 'original intent' was stagnant language and thought.

Our right to keep and bar arms is inalienable and self evident, its not granted by the 2nd. According to Jefferson and other prominent thinkers of his time, such statements as “all Men are created equal” and “endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights’ are obviously true. Such statements do not require proof. The “truths” are held to be unquestionable and beyond debate, since their truth is said to be obvious.

I'm not going to touch this one with a 10 foot pole... though I agree in much of the sentiment. lol

I think there's a case to be made. If the gun control crowd get too uppity a ruling like this may come down and the whole thing will blow up in their face.

I'm just not willing to conflate our God given, Inalienable Rights (life, liberty & pursuit of happiness), with something drawn up by our Founding Fathers (regardless of how auspicious & wise they may have been).

The right to defend yourself is an inalienable right.

but not necessarily the methodology or "tools" utilized in doing so.... may I submit (not carte blanche)

 

[hazlnut]

A hi-cap. magazine ban has been an issue for decades and it underscores the essential point of contention between the camps of the 'gun rights' & 'anti's'... Does it boil down to the fundamental point of the 2nd Amendment... a check, by 'the people', against tyranny?

Are we so evolved as a Society & Nation that this notion of a check against tyranny... is 'foolish' and a silly relic...? We do (currently) see dozens and dozens of Countries around the world where there is rampant oppression by dictatorships, quasi governments, political parties, royal families... over the freedoms and "inalienable rights" of their people... So are we 'above all that', now well into our 3rd century as a Nation?

House Democrats Push Ban on 'High Capacity' Magazines and 205 Different Firearms

Magazine capacity is perhaps the clearest tangible measure of where our Nation stands on this... After all, what use is an "assault rifle" if it can only be used with 'tiny' capacity mags... Is having an armed citizenry... 'armed commensurately' with that of the 'civilian' authority policing them, a bygone notion? Do our remaining 90's something elder's notions of the Wiemar Republic, no longer apply here...?

It's totally unnecessary, but it's not going away.

Just like the AR-15 -- made for mass murder only, but it's not going away.

 

[KeiserC]

lol, lol... your assertions are 'rich' on so many levels.

 

[BluesLegend]

Our right to keep and bar arms is inalienable and self evident, its not granted by the 2nd. According to Jefferson and other prominent thinkers of his time, such statements as “all Men are created equal” and “endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights’ are obviously true. Such statements do not require proof. The “truths” are held to be unquestionable and beyond debate, since their truth is said to be obvious.

I'm not going to touch this one with a 10 foot pole... though I agree in much of the sentiment. lol

I think there's a case to be made. If the gun control crowd get too uppity a ruling like this may come down and the whole thing will blow up in their face.

I'm just not willing to conflate our God given, Inalienable Rights (life, liberty & pursuit of happiness), with something drawn up by our Founding Fathers (regardless of how auspicious & wise they may have been).

The right to defend yourself is an inalienable right.

but not necessarily the methodology or "tools" utilized in doing so.... may I submit (not carte blanche)

Agreed, therefore I would argue before the SCOTUS that reasonable arms would be the same arms used by law enforcement to defend themselves from the very same criminals would they not? Semi auto pistols and rifles.

 

[hunarcy]

A hi-cap. magazine ban has been an issue for decades and it underscores the essential point of contention between the camps of the 'gun rights' & 'anti's'... Does it boil down to the fundamental point of the 2nd Amendment... a check, by 'the people', against tyranny?

Are we so evolved as a Society & Nation that this notion of a check against tyranny... is 'foolish' and a silly relic...? We do (currently) see dozens and dozens of Countries around the world where there is rampant oppression by dictatorships, quasi governments, political parties, royal families... over the freedoms and "inalienable rights" of their people... So are we 'above all that', now well into our 3rd century as a Nation?

House Democrats Push Ban on 'High Capacity' Magazines and 205 Different Firearms

Magazine capacity is perhaps the clearest tangible measure of where our Nation stands on this... After all, what use is an "assault rifle" if it can only be used with 'tiny' capacity mags... Is having an armed citizenry... 'armed commensurately' with that of the 'civilian' authority policing them, a bygone notion? Do our remaining 90's something elder's, notions of the Wiemar Republic, no longer apply here...?

It's the fact that we have devolved socially into whining sniveling self centered narcissists that the second amendment is being questioned.

People don't lose rights because they are too responsible now do they?

Apparently they do...not a person who has an AR-15 right now has done a school shooting.

They are not considered responsible by the sniveling majority.

See we live in a world now where it is your fault if someone else commits a crime

No, we live in a world were we have a society that tries to protect itself by limiting certain freedoms which are harmful to society as a whole. You can't use a cellphone while driving, because society has found that doing so increases the risks of crashing. You can't buy cocaine legally because society has found the drug kills people. You can't go out and rape somebody because society has ruled that it's harmful and immoral. You can't buy a fully armed Abrams tank because having something like that in your possession is deemed dangerous. That is the price of living in a society ruled by laws. You have to be able to give up certain freedoms for the common good.

And it must be proven that giving up that freedom will actually improve the common good, not just be a kneejerk reaction that will do NOTHING to stop whatever the threat is. However, if I have done NOTHING that limits anyone's freedom as I exercise my rights, my rights should not be affected.

 

[bripat9643]

`
As far as constitutional interpretations, I favor the "living" as opposed to the "original intent" method. The former is fluid and dynamic while the latter is stagnant and ridged.
`

The so-called "living constitution" is absolutely worthless. The point of the Constitution is to put constraints on the power of the government. If government can interpret it any way it wants to, then it places no constraints whatsoever. That's why statist bootlickers like you favor it.

 

[bripat9643]

A hi-cap. magazine ban has been an issue for decades and it underscores the essential point of contention between the camps of the 'gun rights' & 'anti's'... Does it boil down to the fundamental point of the 2nd Amendment... a check, by 'the people', against tyranny?

Are we so evolved as a Society & Nation that this notion of a check against tyranny... is 'foolish' and a silly relic...? We do (currently) see dozens and dozens of Countries around the world where there is rampant oppression by dictatorships, quasi governments, political parties, royal families... over the freedoms and "inalienable rights" of their people... So are we 'above all that', now well into our 3rd century as a Nation?

House Democrats Push Ban on 'High Capacity' Magazines and 205 Different Firearms

Magazine capacity is perhaps the clearest tangible measure of where our Nation stands on this... After all, what use is an "assault rifle" if it can only be used with 'tiny' capacity mags... Is having an armed citizenry... 'armed commensurately' with that of the 'civilian' authority policing them, a bygone notion? Do our remaining 90's something elder's, notions of the Wiemar Republic, no longer apply here...?

It's the fact that we have devolved socially into whining sniveling self centered narcissists that the second amendment is being questioned.

People don't lose rights because they are too responsible now do they?

Apparently they do...not a person who has an AR-15 right now has done a school shooting.

They are not considered responsible by the sniveling majority.

See we live in a world now where it is your fault if someone else commits a crime

No, we live in a world were we have a society that tries to protect itself by limiting certain freedoms which are harmful to society as a whole. You can't use a cellphone while driving, because society has found that doing so increases the risks of crashing. You can't buy cocaine legally because society has found the drug kills people. You can't go out and rape somebody because society has ruled that it's harmful and immoral. You can't buy a fully armed Abrams tank because having something like that in your possession is deemed dangerous. That is the price of living in a society ruled by laws. You have to be able to give up certain freedoms for the common good.

In your first example, government owns the roads. Whoever owns them has to set the rules. If they were privately owned, then those owners would set the rules, whether government imposed any or not.

In your second example: There is no legitimate reason for the government to prevent you from buying cocain. If it's harmful, you are harming no one but yourself.

In your third example, you can't rape people because you are violating their rights when you do. That's a truly stupid example.

In the fourth example, until you destroy something with your Abrams tank, you have violated no one else's rights. There is no legitimate reason for government to prevent you from buying one. Of course, the Army has a contract with the manufacturer that says they can't sell one without the Army's permission, so that example is worthless for a number of reasons.

 

[bripat9643]

Are we so evolved as a Society & Nation that this notion of a check against tyranny

The 2nd Amendment was not a check against Tyranny of the Government of the People. It was for the Militia's to always have their weapons with them and to be well trained in the art of military maneuvers and drills. Each State had one. They were ultimately under control of the CiC. Technological advances have rendered the Citizen Militia's obsolete and replaced them with the National Guard. So in a way yes things have evolved. Of course the Supreme Court has decided to re-write the Amendment and ignore bit about the Militia and it's value in a free state and granted the people a limited right to certain weapons.

Clearly impossible to do in this climate but I think it needs to be re-written to clearly define the peoples rights.

Leftwing horeshit, of course.

 

[bripat9643]

There is no indication that 'original intent' was stagnant language and thought.

Claiming that original intent changes over time contradicts the definition of original intent.

 

[westwall]

The days of 'the people' using rifles to fight their own army ended over a hundred years ago. In the age of the musket the people could own, generally, equal arms to what any government could own except maybe warships. That relative equity between forces of the people and the government ended around the time the Gatling Gun came into existence. The advent of modern artillery and then aircraft in the early 20th century forever ended any parity that may have been attainable by 'the people'.

If the American people have to fight their own army it would last a week and we'd lose on all counts. Even millions of kitted and fully auto AK47's or AR15's are going to be nothing more than a nuisance for our modern army. And since the whole argument for the 2nd amendment is so 'the people' can keep themselves free by arms is more than a century obsolete it now is nothing more than the Queen of England. No real power and it is more just a quaint old tradition that people feel all fuzzy about.

And don't get me wrong, I don't like that we can no longer defend ourselves from tyranny here. But reality is what it is. And all you nibs who think you're going to be a 'hero' and 'save the nation' go back to bed. The myth you live and breath is meaningless in physical reality. When a company of M1 Abrams supported by attack helicopters and jets come rolling down the road to your town and you have a line of 100,000 guys with full auto machine guns guess who loses. So don't post any stupid 'well these people did this 50 years ago'. We aren't talking about some other bullshit, we're talking about American people fighting their own army, marines, navy, and air force.

Should people still have rifles for hunting and pistols for self protection, yes. But this nonsense about 'pertectin freedom' is mental archeology. That myth ended a hundred years ago.

Tell that to the Rumanian revolutionaries who got rid of their dictator just a few years ago. How quickly you progressives forget. Probably why you keep trying to do the same, stupid stuff. Over and over and over again.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

A hi-cap. magazine ban has been an issue for decades and it underscores the essential point of contention between the camps of the 'gun rights' & 'anti's'... Does it boil down to the fundamental point of the 2nd Amendment... a check, by 'the people', against tyranny?

Are we so evolved as a Society & Nation that this notion of a check against tyranny... is 'foolish' and a silly relic...? We do (currently) see dozens and dozens of Countries around the world where there is rampant oppression by dictatorships, quasi governments, political parties, royal families... over the freedoms and "inalienable rights" of their people... So are we 'above all that', now well into our 3rd century as a Nation?

House Democrats Push Ban on 'High Capacity' Magazines and 205 Different Firearms

Magazine capacity is perhaps the clearest tangible measure of where our Nation stands on this... After all, what use is an "assault rifle" if it can only be used with 'tiny' capacity mags... Is having an armed citizenry... 'armed commensurately' with that of the 'civilian' authority policing them, a bygone notion? Do our remaining 90's something elder's notions of the Wiemar Republic, no longer apply here...?

There is nothing in the text, history, or case law of the Second Amendment that authorizes citizens to ‘take up arms’ against a government lawfully elected, reflecting the will of the people, because a minority subjectively and incorrectly perceives government to have become ‘tyrannical.’

The Second Amendment doesn’t ‘trump’ the First.

The people have the First Amendment right to petition government for a redress of grievances through the political process (elections) or through the judicial process, seeking relief in the courts.

The First Amendment rights of the people cannot be abridged by an unlawful armed insurrection contrary to the Constitution, and in no manner supported by the Second Amendment.

Indeed, it is because we are a Constitutional Republic, whose citizens are subject solely to the rule of law, that we have remained free from oppression and tyranny – having nothing to do with the civilian possession of firearms.

The Second Amendment codifies an individual right to possess a firearm pursuant to lawful self-defense, not to deter crime or act in the capacity of law enforcement – and certainly not to ‘overthrow’ the government.

Last, with regard to magazine capacity regulations, those measures have been consistently upheld by the courts as Constitutional, in compliance with the Second Amendment.

 

[hunarcy]

The days of 'the people' using rifles to fight their own army ended over a hundred years ago. In the age of the musket the people could own, generally, equal arms to what any government could own except maybe warships. That relative equity between forces of the people and the government ended around the time the Gatling Gun came into existence. The advent of modern artillery and then aircraft in the early 20th century forever ended any parity that may have been attainable by 'the people'.

If the American people have to fight their own army it would last a week and we'd lose on all counts. Even millions of kitted and fully auto AK47's or AR15's are going to be nothing more than a nuisance for our modern army. And since the whole argument for the 2nd amendment is so 'the people' can keep themselves free by arms is more than a century obsolete it now is nothing more than the Queen of England. No real power and it is more just a quaint old tradition that people feel all fuzzy about.

And don't get me wrong, I don't like that we can no longer defend ourselves from tyranny here. But reality is what it is. And all you nibs who think you're going to be a 'hero' and 'save the nation' go back to bed. The myth you live and breath is meaningless in physical reality. When a company of M1 Abrams supported by attack helicopters and jets come rolling down the road to your town and you have a line of 100,000 guys with full auto machine guns guess who loses. So don't post any stupid 'well these people did this 50 years ago'. We aren't talking about some other bullshit, we're talking about American people fighting their own army, marines, navy, and air force.

Should people still have rifles for hunting and pistols for self protection, yes. But this nonsense about 'pertectin freedom' is mental archeology. That myth ended a hundred years ago.

Never heard of Iraq, huh? How long have we been in Afghanistan?

 

[hunarcy]

If someday a hand-held A bomb was perfected, would the Second Amendment still apply to that simple hand held weapon?

It would be nice if you knew the difference between "arms" and "ordinance".

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

A hi-cap. magazine ban has been an issue for decades and it underscores the essential point of contention between the camps of the 'gun rights' & 'anti's'... Does it boil down to the fundamental point of the 2nd Amendment... a check, by 'the people', against tyranny?

Are we so evolved as a Society & Nation that this notion of a check against tyranny... is 'foolish' and 'an antiquated notion'? We do see dozens and dozens of Countries around the world where there is rampant oppression by dictatorships, quasi governments, political parties, royal families... over the freedoms and "inalienable rights" of their people... So are we 'above all that', now well into our 3rd century as a Nation?

House Democrats Push Ban on 'High Capacity' Magazines and 205 Different Firearms

Magazine capacity is perhaps the clearest tangible measure of where our Nation stands on this... After all, what use is an "assault rifle" if it can only be used with 'tiny' capacity mags... Is having an armed citizenry... 'armed commensurately' with that of the 'civilian' authority policing them, a bygone notion? Do our remaining 90's something elder's, notions of the Wiemar Republic, no longer apply here...

You got to be kidding right? The nation's Domestic Spy system is being abused and weaponized on political opponents. You have MASSIVE societal division like we've never seen. 30% of Dem partisans are STILL fighting the election results like abandoned WW2 Jap soldiers. And the Media basically destroyed itself SUPPORTING the whole charade of the Steele dossier and "Russian collusion"..

And you think things are SOOOO peaceful and pastoral that we are BEYOND protecting ourselves from instability or govt abuse??

Hang around USMB for awhile and SEE how "evolved" all this is. We're headed for the hole in the crapper right now..

lol... that's kind of the whole point of my query. You forgot to mention that we have 10's of millions here illegally (many felons, some terrorists) yet we should be told how many rounds is "appropriate" for defending ourselves/families...! We have a decades long slide into Gov. expansion and erosion of individual freedoms...

Good response... very much am on board with it!

Ignorant nonsense.

In fact, over the last 50 years, we’ve seen a comprehensive expansion of rights and protected liberties – minorities’ right to vote, the privacy rights of women, the due process rights of immigrants, and the equal protection rights of gay Americans have been acknowledged and safeguarded from abuse by the states.

The notion that our rights have been ‘eroded’ is as ridiculous as it is wrong.

 

[westwall]

A hi-cap. magazine ban has been an issue for decades and it underscores the essential point of contention between the camps of the 'gun rights' & 'anti's'... Does it boil down to the fundamental point of the 2nd Amendment... a check, by 'the people', against tyranny?

Are we so evolved as a Society & Nation that this notion of a check against tyranny... is 'foolish' and a silly relic...? We do (currently) see dozens and dozens of Countries around the world where there is rampant oppression by dictatorships, quasi governments, political parties, royal families... over the freedoms and "inalienable rights" of their people... So are we 'above all that', now well into our 3rd century as a Nation?

House Democrats Push Ban on 'High Capacity' Magazines and 205 Different Firearms

Magazine capacity is perhaps the clearest tangible measure of where our Nation stands on this... After all, what use is an "assault rifle" if it can only be used with 'tiny' capacity mags... Is having an armed citizenry... 'armed commensurately' with that of the 'civilian' authority policing them, a bygone notion? Do our remaining 90's something elder's notions of the Wiemar Republic, no longer apply here...?

There is nothing in the text, history, or case law of the Second Amendment that authorizes citizens to ‘take up arms’ against a government lawfully elected, reflecting the will of the people, because a minority subjectively and incorrectly perceives government to have become ‘tyrannical.’

The Second Amendment doesn’t ‘trump’ the First.

The people have the First Amendment right to petition government for a redress of grievances through the political process (elections) or through the judicial process, seeking relief in the courts.

The First Amendment rights of the people cannot be abridged by an unlawful armed insurrection contrary to the Constitution, and in no manner supported by the Second Amendment.

Indeed, it is because we are a Constitutional Republic, whose citizens are subject solely to the rule of law, that we have remained free from oppression and tyranny – having nothing to do with the civilian possession of firearms.

The Second Amendment codifies an individual right to possess a firearm pursuant to lawful self-defense, not to deter crime or act in the capacity of law enforcement – and certainly not to ‘overthrow’ the government.

Last, with regard to magazine capacity regulations, those measures have been consistently upheld by the courts as Constitutional, in compliance with the Second Amendment.

What a load of horse shit.

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
- Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
- Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
- Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789