The 2nd Amendment

[spartan]

"Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned"

To whom are you referring?

[CBWx2]

"Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned"

I'm not the scorned one here. In fact, that post pretty much suggests the opposite is the case. You see, my opinion of you hasn't really diminished all that much, because you are exactly who I have always thought you were. You, on the other hand, just a few short months after sending that, have now labelled me as a Stalinist, intellectually dishonest child murderer who has never posted a legitimate thought or opinion just because I happen to disagree with you on a particular issue. To that, all I can say is...

[CBWx2]

...and just to further shut up this clown's ridiculous claim that the right to bear arms was never viewed by the founders as a means to throw off unwanted government.

From James Madison ( Author of the Constitution ). The Federalist Papers #46:

"The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition. The reasonings contained in these papers must have been employed to little purpose indeed, if it could be necessary now to disprove the reality of this danger. That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism. Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. 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 highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. 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. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the su**CENSORED**ion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors."
http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa46.htm

This black hole may consume all common sense that enters it's vortex , but it can't re-write history.

Further proof that you lack a fundamental understanding of what you are posting. Madison is, once again, referring to state militias, and he is, once again, referring to self defense. The Federalist Papers were written for the purposes of swaying states towards adopting the new constitution. The purpose of this essay was to quell fears about a federal army being formed and the possibility of it being used for the purpose of marching on or abolishing state governments. Hence the promise that any standing army under federal control would not exceed 100th of the overall population, which would make any federal force small enough to be defeated in a war against a coalition of state forces. This was written for the purposes of ensuring that the federal government would never be able to abolish state governments, not for the purpose of granting individual citizens the right to overthrow their government.

The very first sentence serves as a clue to those adept enough in the basic principles of reading comprehension as to what the rest of the piece is addressing:

"The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition."

Please, for the love of God, stop misrepresenting the words of our founders to support your baseless, paranoia driven assertions.

[mwk]

...and just to further shut up this clown's ridiculous claim that the right to bear arms was never viewed by the founders as a means to throw off unwanted government.

From James Madison ( Author of the Constitution ). The Federalist Papers #46:

"The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition. The reasonings contained in these papers must have been employed to little purpose indeed, if it could be necessary now to disprove the reality of this danger. That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism. Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. 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 highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. 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. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the su**CENSORED**ion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors."
http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa46.htm

This black hole may consume all common sense that enters it's vortex , but it can't re-write history.

Further proof that you lack a fundamental understanding of what you are posting. Madison is, once again, referring to state militias, and he is, once again, referring to self defense. The Federalist Papers were written for the purposes of swaying states towards adopting the new constitution. The purpose of this essay was to quell fears about a federal army being formed and the possibility of it being used for the purpose of marching on or abolishing state governments. Hence the promise that any standing army under federal control would not exceed 100th of the overall population, which would make any federal force small enough to be defeated in a war against a coalition of state forces. This was written for the purposes of ensuring that the federal government would never be able to abolish state governments, not for the purpose of granting individual citizens the right to overthrow their government.

The very first sentence serves as a clue to those adept enough in the basic principles of reading comprehension as to what the rest of the piece is addressing:

"The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition."

Please, for the love of God, stop misrepresenting the words of our founders to support your baseless, paranoia driven assertions.

CBWx2,

I would point to this quote for further proof of what the founding fathers meant:

"I ask sir, who is the militia? It is the whole people...To disarm the people, that is the best and most effective way to enslave them..." - George Mason

and then a quote from one of the Democratic heroes of recent years:

"The right of the citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possilble." - Vice President Hubert H. Humphrey

mwk

[Dolorous Jason]

The primary reason the Articles of Confederation failed was that it did not allow the central government a method of paying it's bills.
 
Under the Articles, the central government was funded through volunteery payments from the individual states. Each state paid according to their state legislatures agreement with the policies of the central government. That meant that the central government could not maintain a army or navy to defend the country, unless the states sent the money. And then, Virginia might not agree to fund a ship built in Massachusetts and Rhode Island might not want to support troops on the frontier in Georgia.  Since the Army of the Revolution was paid in the central government money, the veterans found their pay nearly worthless when they got home.
 
There were also other problems. Since trade was state controlled, each state set it's own standard for tariffs and limits on imports. It was possible that you might be able to purchase a manufactured item in Virginia, which New York prohibited it being imported. Shipping overland was also a major hassle. From New York, you might have an export fee to Pennsylvania, who had an import tariff. If you were going on to Maryland, there might be an Penn export fee and a Maryland import fee. If you were smart, you could reduce some expenses by shipping over water, where you would only have to deal with the state you left and the state it was going to. This would have been a bigger problem as the country moved westward.


If the purpose of bringing up this topic is to drag state's rights into the black hole , and suggest that the founders rejected all sovereign rights of the states and wanted a centralized oligarchy instead , you are wrong again , comrade. Thet just needed a way to better pay the bills , and make commerce regular.

[Dolorous Jason]

...and just to further shut up this clown's ridiculous claim that the right to bear arms was never viewed by the founders as a means to throw off unwanted government.

From James Madison ( Author of the Constitution ). The Federalist Papers #46:

"The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition. The reasonings contained in these papers must have been employed to little purpose indeed, if it could be necessary now to disprove the reality of this danger. That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism. Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. 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 highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. 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. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the su**CENSORED**ion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors."
http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa46.htm

This black hole may consume all common sense that enters it's vortex , but it can't re-write history.

Further proof that you lack a fundamental understanding of what you are posting. Madison is, once again, referring to state militias, and he is, once again, referring to self defense. The Federalist Papers were written for the purposes of swaying states towards adopting the new constitution. The purpose of this essay was to quell fears about a federal army being formed and the possibility of it being used for the purpose of marching on or abolishing state governments. Hence the promise that any standing army under federal control would not exceed 100th of the overall population, which would make any federal force small enough to be defeated in a war against a coalition of state forces. This was written for the purposes of ensuring that the federal government would never be able to abolish state governments, not for the purpose of granting individual citizens the right to overthrow their government.

The very first sentence serves as a clue to those adept enough in the basic principles of reading comprehension as to what the rest of the piece is addressing:

"The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition."

Please, for the love of God, stop misrepresenting the words of our founders to support your baseless, paranoia driven assertions.

CBWx2,

I would point to this quote for further proof of what the founding fathers meant:

"I ask sir, who is the militia? It is the whole people...To disarm the people, that is the best and most effective way to enslave them..." - George Mason

and then a quote from one of the Democratic heroes of recent years:

"The right of the citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possilble." - Vice President Hubert H. Humphrey

mwk

There is no denying what Madison is saying . CBW is in denial , and his entire point that the founders never saw the right to bear arms as a safeguard against tyrannical governments is blown up in his stupid face. This debate is over.

[dbucfan]

was just scanning the net and came across this

JANUARY 9, 2013
Why the 2nd Amendment
By Walter E. Williams 1/2/2013
Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., in the wake of the Newtown, Conn., shootings, said: "The British are not coming. ... We don't need all these guns to kill people." Lewis' vision, shared by many, represents a gross ignorance of why the framers of the Constitution gave us the Second Amendment. How about a few quotes from the period and you decide whether our Founding Fathers harbored a fear of foreign tyrants.
Alexander Hamilton: "The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed," adding later, "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government." By the way, Hamilton is referring to what institution when he says "the representatives of the people"?
James Madison: "(The Constitution preserves) the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation ... (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
Thomas Jefferson: "What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms."
George Mason, author of the Virginia Bill of Rights, which inspired our Constitution's Bill of Rights, said, "To disarm the people -- that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
Rep. John Lewis and like-minded people might dismiss these thoughts by saying the founders were racist anyway. Here's a more recent quote from a card-carrying liberal, the late Vice President Hubert H. Humphrey: "Certainly, one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms. ... The right of the citizen to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America but which historically has proven to be always possible." I have many other Second Amendment references at http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/quotes.html.
How about a couple of quotations with which Rep. Lewis and others might agree? "Armas para que?" (translated: "Guns, for what?") by Fidel Castro. There's a more famous one: "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own
http://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2013/01/02/why-the-2nd-amendment-n1476632/print   Page 1 of 2
Print - 'Why the 2nd Amendment','Walter E. Williams'   1/9/13 8:43 AM
downfall by so doing." That was Adolf Hitler.
Here's the gun grabbers' slippery-slope agenda, laid out by Nelson T. Shields, founder of Handgun Control Inc.: "We're going to have to take this one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily -- given the political realities -- going to be very modest. ... Right now, though, we'd be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal -- total control of handguns in the United States -- is going to take time. ... The final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition -- except for the military, police, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs and licensed gun collectors -- totally illegal" (The New Yorker, July 1976).
There have been people who've ridiculed the protections afforded by the Second Amendment, asking what chance would citizens have against the military might of the U.S. government. Military might isn't always the deciding factor. Our 1776 War of Independence was against the mightiest nation on the face of the earth -- Great Britain. In Syria, the rebels are making life uncomfortable for the much- better-equipped Syrian regime. Today's Americans are vastly better-armed than our founders, Warsaw Ghetto Jews and Syrian rebels.
There are about 300 million privately held firearms owned by Americans. That's nothing to sneeze at. And notice that the people who support gun control are the very people who want to control and dictate our lives.
Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2013 CREATORS.COM

[spartan]

...and just to further shut up this clown's ridiculous claim that the right to bear arms was never viewed by the founders as a means to throw off unwanted government.

From James Madison ( Author of the Constitution ). The Federalist Papers #46:

"The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition. The reasonings contained in these papers must have been employed to little purpose indeed, if it could be necessary now to disprove the reality of this danger. That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism. Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. 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 highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. 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. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the su**CENSORED**ion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors."
http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa46.htm

This black hole may consume all common sense that enters it's vortex , but it can't re-write history.

Further proof that you lack a fundamental understanding of what you are posting. Madison is, once again, referring to state militias, and he is, once again, referring to self defense. The Federalist Papers were written for the purposes of swaying states towards adopting the new constitution. The purpose of this essay was to quell fears about a federal army being formed and the possibility of it being used for the purpose of marching on or abolishing state governments. Hence the promise that any standing army under federal control would not exceed 100th of the overall population, which would make any federal force small enough to be defeated in a war against a coalition of state forces. This was written for the purposes of ensuring that the federal government would never be able to abolish state governments, not for the purpose of granting individual citizens the right to overthrow their government.

The very first sentence serves as a clue to those adept enough in the basic principles of reading comprehension as to what the rest of the piece is addressing:

"The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition."

Please, for the love of God, stop misrepresenting the words of our founders to support your baseless, paranoia driven assertions.

CBWx2,

I would point to this quote for further proof of what the founding fathers meant:

"I ask sir, who is the militia? It is the whole people...To disarm the people, that is the best and most effective way to enslave them..." - George Mason

and then a quote from one of the Democratic heroes of recent years:

"The right of the citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possilble." - Vice President Hubert H. Humphrey

mwk

How does this sentence fit into your theory:

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation"

[CBWx2]

The primary reason the Articles of Confederation failed was that it did not allow the central government a method of paying it's bills.

That was one of the reasons. It was not the primary reason, although I was certain that if you bothered to answer at all, this and the interstate commerce argument would be the only ones you would choose to trumpet because they're the only ones that don't contradict your skewed viewpoint as to the intended purpose of drafting a new Constitution.

The reason that I asked you that was because of that quote you posted from the Federalist Papers by Madison. As I stated, Madison wrote that in an effort to quell fears about the possible dangers in the formation of a federal army. Why would he need to quell fears about the formation of an army, you might ask? Because one of the primary intents of the new Constitution was to address the issue of national security by the reformation of the current state militia system, which proved to be hopelessly insufficient under the authority granted to the central government under the Articles of Confederation.

The one major event that lead to the Philadelphia Convention was Shay's Rebellion. This event exposed the severe lack of preparedness this country had in dealing with matters of national security. The Articles of Confederation only granted congress with the power of coordinating a national military force by requesting a certain number soldiers and resources from the individual states. The states, however, were of no obligation to comply with the federal request, and in many cases, chose not to. This served to be a severely insufficient way to protect the nation against all foes, both foreign and domestic, hence the US Constitution, and more specifically, the 2nd amendment.

The 2nd amendment, and the articles referencing it, reformed the flaws that were apparent within the Articles of Confederation in regards to how the federal government sees to the defense of the nation. This is the exact reason why it grants congress with the powers to see to the organization, arming, and training of militia forces, and most important, "governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States." This meant that congress now had the power to call up a certain number of state militiamen to serve under federal authority without having to rely on the states to comply with the request.

Prior to the US Constitution, 11 states also maintained their own separate navies. The 2nd amendment dissolved individual state navies, and formed a centralized navy under the sole control of the federal government.

The Constitution also established the executive branch, and created the office of the President, which among other things, was charged with the role of Commander in Chief of the armed forces. Now this would be a meaningless and senseless title, unless there was an intention to form a federal army, which there was. It was called the 2nd amendment.

Here is James Madison, the man himself, expressing the need to replace the Articles of Confederation with a document that strengthens federal authority. Number 6 is telling, as it is clearly referring to armed rebellions, citing Shays' Rebellion as a motivating factor for the need to expand federal authority:

6. want of guaranty to the States of their Constitutions & laws against internal violence.

The confederation is silent on this point and therefore by the second article the hands of the federal authority are tied. According to Republican Theory, Right and power being both vested in the majority, are held to be synonymous. According to fact and experience a minority may in an appeal to force, be an overmatch for the majority. 1. If the minority happen to include all such as possess the skill and habits of military life, & such as possess the great pecuniary resources, one third only may conquer the remaining two thirds.

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch5s16.html

Madison is clearly stating that power ought to lie with the majority, and that the likelihood of an armed minority being able to usurp such power from the majority, such was the case with Shays' rebellion, was one of the primary reasons that the Articles needed to be replaced. All of this can be found in your history books, however, nowhere can it be found that the 2nd amendment supported any right to rebel. If you read the thing, it actually expressly grants the right for military force to be employed to suppress rebellions, which was specifically included due to the influence of Shays' Rebellion.

Anyone who quotes the Federalist Papers as a basis for granting the liberty to rebel is utterly clueless as to what the purpose of the Federalist Papers were, and that was to pass this newly drafted document that dramatically expanded the powers of the central authority. The founders attempted to preserve state sovereignty to the fullest extent of their abilities, but the purpose of the Constitution wasn't to give the states or individual citizens rights to arbitrarily ignore federal authority. That was happening already under the Articles. It's purpose was to create a strong central government that would have authority over the states.

[spartan]

The 2nd amendment, and the articles referencing it, reformed the flaws that were apparent within the Articles of Confederation in regards to how the federal government sees to the defense of the nation. This is the exact reason why it grants congress with the powers to see to the organization, arming, and training of militia forces, and most important, "governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States." This meant that congress now had the power to call up a certain number of state militiamen to serve under federal authority without having to rely on the states to comply with the request.

According to you, Madisons letter was about appeasing those who feared a Federal Standing Army because the local State Militia would vastly outnumber and be able to fend them off. What sense then would it make, making that same militia organized, armed, trained and controlled by the same Federal authorities that organize, train, arm and control the Federal Standing Army that they were supposed to be fending off? Seems like a bit of a flaw in your argument there kimosabie.

[CBWx2]

CBWx2,

I would point to this quote for further proof of what the founding fathers meant:

"I ask sir, who is the militia? It is the whole people...To disarm the people, that is the best and most effective way to enslave them..." - George Mason

Your mistake is in your portrayal of the founders as a homogenous group. They were not. They were just as diverse a group as what exists in America today, which is why random quotes from a specific founder in no way shape or form represents all opinions held by all the founders. George Mason didn't write, nor did he even support the drafting of the Federal Constitution, so his comments likely have no bearing on the meaning or intent of the 2nd amendment.

[CBWx2]

The 2nd amendment, and the articles referencing it, reformed the flaws that were apparent within the Articles of Confederation in regards to how the federal government sees to the defense of the nation. This is the exact reason why it grants congress with the powers to see to the organization, arming, and training of militia forces, and most important, "governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States." This meant that congress now had the power to call up a certain number of state militiamen to serve under federal authority without having to rely on the states to comply with the request.

According to you, Madisons letter was about appeasing those who feared a Federal Standing Army because the local State Militia would vastly outnumber and be able to fend them off. What sense then would it make, making that same militia organized, armed, trained and controlled by the same Federal authorities that organize, train, arm and control the Federal Standing Army that they were supposed to be fending off? Seems like a bit of a flaw in your argument there kimosabie.

Only because you didn't understand the argument. Read the Constitution. It grants the federal government the responsibility of seeing that the militia is well trained and armed, but it only grants the federal government the ability to govern "such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States." That means that even though the congress was responsible for ensuring that states were maintaining well trained militias, it could only autonomously call up a certain number of militiamen to see to matters of national defense. The proposed number, 100th of the total population, was outlined by Madison in the letter.

[spartan]

The 2nd amendment, and the articles referencing it, reformed the flaws that were apparent within the Articles of Confederation in regards to how the federal government sees to the defense of the nation. This is the exact reason why it grants congress with the powers to see to the organization, arming, and training of militia forces, and most important, "governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States." This meant that congress now had the power to call up a certain number of state militiamen to serve under federal authority without having to rely on the states to comply with the request.

According to you, Madisons letter was about appeasing those who feared a Federal Standing Army because the local State Militia would vastly outnumber and be able to fend them off. What sense then would it make, making that same militia organized, armed, trained and controlled by the same Federal authorities that organize, train, arm and control the Federal Standing Army that they were supposed to be fending off? Seems like a bit of a flaw in your argument there kimosabie.

Only because you didn't understand the argument. Read the Constitution. It grants the federal government the responsibility of seeing that the militia is well trained and armed, but it only grants the federal government the ability to govern "such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States." That means that even though the congress was responsible for ensuring that states were maintaining well trained militias, it could only autonomously call up a certain number of militiamen to see to matters of national defense. The proposed number, 100th of the total population, was outlined by Madison in the letter.

Or you miss the point. Why would the STATES allow the Federal Govt to be responsible for the arming, training and governance of the militias that are supposed to protect them from that same Federal Govt? Bit like putting the wolf in charge of the sheep pen don't you think?

[CBWx2]

Why would the STATES allow the Federal Govt to be responsible for the arming, training and governance of the militias that are supposed to protect them from that same Federal Govt? Bit like putting the wolf in charge of the sheep pen don't you think?

Think of it in terms of the way the Roman Senate governed legions, spartan. Much of what the founders did was influenced by Roman society as it existed under the Republic. The Roman Republic required that all provinces raise and maintain a legion, but dictated the size and structure of each legion. The purpose was to ensure that no one governor would be capable of raising an army that could conquer another Roman province without the authority of the senate, nor would it be able to march on Rome and overthrow the senate.

The basic principle is the same. All states were to have well trained and armed militias so that they could not only fight usurpation from the federal government, but also to protect their sovereignty from infringements by other states. The states maintained control of their militias, with the exception of whatever number was called upon by the federal government. And the federal government was to be allowed to call up a certain number of troops from states without having to ask permission, but this number was to remain modest enough that it could not then be used to overthrow a state or group of state governments.

The reason why congress was to see to this was because under the Articles of Confederation, the number of troops and level of preparedness of those troops varied greatly from state to state. Some states had a formidable militia and navy, while others consisted of nothing more than a bunch of yeoman farmers and laborers with no military experience or training. Had Shays' Rebellion taken place in a state that resembled the latter, the likelihood is that it could have easily been successful at overthrowing that state's government. Therefor, it was the congresses job to ensure that standards were set, not only for the benefit of the federal government, but for the benefit of the individual states as well.

[spartan]

All states were to have well trained and armed militias so that they could not only fight usurpation from the federal government, but also to protect their sovereignty from infringements by other states

So you are saying one of the roles of local militias was to protect it, if necessary from the Federal Govt?