The "militia rights" theory is that a militia has rights, rather than individuals. I'm assuming this is what you're talking about.
That is how the "militia right" interpretation has been understood. I have noted you are not arguing that.
I use the term "militia rights" (plural) to argue that there are no rights recognized / granted / established by the 2nd Amendment to be claimed by
anyone,
that pertain to militia. My original statement, where I first brought the "no militia rights" argument into this thread, was in post 108:
There are no "militia rights" to be found or claimed under the 2nd Amendment. There is no right for citizens to "be in the militia" nor is there any right for citizens to form their own militia, independent of law.
That has nothing to do with the old militia right interpretation.
Look, an individual has a right to own weapons. We know why this was inserted into the Bill of Rights specifically, it was so the militia would have a ready supply of weapons.
Do you agree with this?
I agree that perpetuating the general militia principle was the object of the 2nd Amendment but I do not believe that the federal recognition and protection of the right is qualified, conditioned or restricted to just that "purpose" (to use your word).
It is my argument that the RKBA exists because no power was granted to the feds to have any interest in the personal arms of the private citizen -- not because the 2nd Amendment says there is. There is no power for the feds in any capacity (Executive, Legislative or the Judiciary) to limit the recognition of the right or the scope of protection to just that militia object.
What other purpose would there have been to protect firearms?
Backwards thinking. The question is, how has the federal government been empowered to limit the protection of the RBKA to just militia action / function?
Yes, they were important tools at the time. But many important tools existed at the time, and none of them were given constitutional protection.
Tools to build and maintain and secure what?
Liberty . . .
Books are also protected, the printing press is protected, speech is protected but nobody would ever argue that the protection of these objects and actions is limited to just the narrow political object of securing Liberty.
Also, why guns in an amendment that starts with "A well regulated militia"?
When placed alongside state RKBA provisions, the construction is not so peculiar.
The declaration in the federal 2nd Amendment, "
[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" is inextricably meshed (philosophically) with, "
as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up." To the framers and state reps and citizens, each represented the same sentiment . . .
The declaratory clause of the 2nd Amendment only re-affirms what once was a universally understood and accepted maxim; that the armed citizenry dispenses with the need for a standing army (in times of peace) and those armed citizens stand as a barrier to foreign invasion and domestic tyranny (thus ensuring the free state).
Firstly, that the feds could declare individuals religiously scrupulous and prevent them from bearing arms, or rendering militia service or militia duty. You choose, they're all in this document and all used synonymously.
The Quakers were not objecting to militia service per se, they were pacifists as a principle in their entire life. They would not use a weapon to harm another person even to defend their own life. The larger, modern military has made allowances for such people permitting conscientious objectors to serve in non-combat positions. You are really, really, really over-reading the "religiously scrupulous" debate.
Do you agree that this is what Mr Gerry meant?
Yes, even a clause intended to demonstrate deference to certain people, to protect their unique rights, could be misconstructed into creating a power to restrict everyone's rights. That's why it was defeated.
The Federalist Papers saw no problem with a standing army.
"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. "
The Federalist Papers claim there's nothing to be worried about.
The Federalists recognized the dangers of a standing army but they argued that having a provision for establishing an army was necessary and that those fear could be mitigated. The Federalists thought some of the Anti-Federalist arguments were a bit silly.
Your chopped quote is disingenuous; you left out the beginning, "Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made." It isn't advocating or endorsing a standing army, it is saying that even if a standing army were to be amassed, and even if it were totally devoted to a national ruler, the militia could defeat it by shear numbers.
Madison, after your chop, said that the largest standing army would only amount to 1% of the total population. He said they would be outnumbered 25 to 1 by, as
Presser put it, "reserve militia", those citizens
capable of bearing arms. Even worse for the standing army, Madison says they would be outnumbered, ("opposed" is the word Madison used) by an organized militia of "citizens with arms in their hands", by a factor of 17 to1.
That's hardly saying there's nothing to worry about, It's saying if a standing army ever came about and if they stepped over the line they would be annihilated.
Interestingly, Madison's ratios remain on point today;
318 million "total souls"
Active duty and National Guard "standing army" of about 3 million
And 75+ million armed citizens opposing the standing army by a factor of 25 to 1.
.
