Again you speak from the assumption that the amendment in question has become / is part of the Constitution.
For this question, (RKBA) a simple and superficial inspection of the philosophical arguments the framers embraced on the armed citizenry would suffice. A proposed amendment that would seek to grant the authority to disarm the citizenry runs counter to Republican thought.
You are arguing for an authoritarian model rather than a liberty based one. Your position meshes with Plato and Bodin and Filmer; the armed citizenry aligns with Aristotle, Cicero, Locke and Sidney.
Speaking of the founding principles and rights theory, Jefferson said:
[ul]
"…with respect to our rights, and the acts of the British government contravening those rights, there was but one opinion on this side of the water. All American whigs thought alike on these subjects. When forced, therefore, to resort to arms for redress, an appeal to the tribunal of the world was deemed proper for our justification.
This was the object of the Declaration of Independence. Not to find out new principles, or new arguments, never before thought of, not merely to say things which had never been said before; but to place before mankind the common sense of the subject, in terms so plain and firm as to command their assent, and to justify ourselves in the independent stand we are compelled to take. Neither aiming at originality of principle or sentiment, nor yet copied from any particular and previous writing, it was intended to be an expression of the American mind, and to give to that expression the proper tone and spirit called for by the occasion.
All its authority rests then on the harmonizing sentiments of the day, whether expressed in conversation, in letters, printed essays, or in the elementary books of public right, as Aristotle, Cicero, Locke, Sidney, &c."
Letter to Henry Lee, May 8, 1825
[/ul]
As does the Constitution. It is a recognized continuum of thought.
I note Jefferson’s defense of the charges of plagiarism; that he lifted from Locke in writing the DoI.
The arguments supporting and denigrating an armed citizenry go back a few thousand years . . . there is really nothing new in the basic argument that your side makes advocating a government monopoly of arms.
Jefferson mandated that Locke and Sidney’s works be required reading at the University of Virginia. He wrote:
[ul]
[li]"Resolved, that it is the opinion of this Board that as to the general principles of liberty and the rights of man, in nature and in society, the doctrines of Locke, in his “Essay concerning the true original extent and end of civil government,” and of Sidney in his “Discourses on government,” may be considered as those generally approved by our fellow citizens of this, and the United States, and that on the distinctive principles of the government of our State, and of that of the United States, the best guides are to be found in, 1. The Declaration of Independence, as the fundamental act of union of these States. 2. The book known by the title of “The Federalist,” being an authority to which appeal is habitually made by all, and rarely declined or denied by any as evidence of the general opinion of those who framed, and of those who accepted the Constitution of the United States, on questions as to its genuine meaning. . . . "[/li]
University of Virginia Library,
Jefferson, Thomas, 1743-1826. Public Papers, “Report to the President and Directors of the Literary Fund, October 7, 1822”
[/ul]
I highly recommend Jefferson’s reading list. You might also read Bodin and Filmer, the framers dismissed them as instructional as they endorsed authoritarian rule and recommended government have a monopoly of arms.
80,000,000 gun owners and voters for a start who face having their rights stolen.
In 1788 Madison said the biggest standing army that could be amassed in the US would be outnumbered (“opposed” was the word he used) by armed citizens by a factor of 17-20 to 1.
If he counted heads today he would see he was right on the button . . . maybe a teeny bit low LOL.
