If the founding fathers just wanted to write, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" But wait, they didn't.
So what is it then? Are you capable of explaining it? What was the purpose of the Amendment? Why was it included in a list of individual rights? Is it a reservation of power to the militia? Or to the states? Or is it a “right” of individual militia members to have a government approved weapon while engaged in government approved militia functions?
My response and explanation of the militia preamble is found here: Thread “The militia only interpretation of the 2nd Amendment”, pages 43-44, posts 429-435. Please read them. You will note that I cite authority for my position. You should try it some time. “Bucky on Constitutional Law” has so far proven to be a very short and incorrect tome.
If you look at the history of this statement,
What history? The secret history you keep in your head? Where is there any evidence that you have read any of the actual history? Please cite some.
in the North they had militias to protect the communities however at times they rose up against the federal government where George Washington had to fight those militias on behalf of the U.S. government.
Please, oh pretty please, cite me a single example of this. I am very familiar with the painting of Washington crossing the Delaware River. I have seen no such heroic paintings of his exploits fighting “those militias on behalf of the U.S. Government.”
The only “rising” “in the north” before the Bill of Rights was “Shay’s rebellion”, which was during the time of the Articles of Confederation, so there was no “U.S. Government.” And George Washington was retired at this time. He took no part in suppressing that rebellion. That rebellion did prompt him to come out of retirement and press for a Constitution. But no one had to “fight those militias,” for the “militia” was the one fighting for the government against the rising.
The next “rising” was the “Whisky Rebellion.” Now it is true Washington was President when this started, but he did not “fight those militias on behalf of the U.S. government.” He never fought anyone.
Oh, and this “rebellion” began in 1791. Why is that important? Because the Congress passed the Bill of Rights and sent it out for ratification on September 25, 1789.
How does a “rebellion” that began two years after a document was drafted have any impact on the drafting of that document?
Not a single source cited for the claim that the 2nd Amendment was birthed out of militias in the “North” that “at times rose up against the federal government.” Because none exists.
And—here is the best part—if the 2nd Amendment is not an individual right, but is instead somehow a state’s right to have an effective militia, or some hybrid unexplained “collective military right” aimed at ensuring an effective militia…then how does the emergency of militias in the “north” having “rose up against the federal government”—which, if true, would cause a great deal of handwringing, wailing, death, destruction, expenditure of scarce federal funds, and gnashing of teeth in Washington—give any impetus to a call to include an amendment designed to ensure the future strength of these rebellious entities?
Why do I need to get involved when you argument is so flawed it destroys itself?
And so we see that “Bucky on Early American History” is a tome as short and flawed as the Con Law one.
You, sir, are entitled to your own opinion but you are not entitled to invent your own history. But if you do, then at least do us the courtesy of inventing some that helps your argument.
