The right to bear arms

[Revenant_Threshold]

@Bone

Abatis is not saying that this right exists because the government has made no law against it - that’s not the correct way to interpret the 2nd.

Pardon; looking back at my post, you’re quite correct, I phrased that very badly. Let me give it another go; Abatis is saying (if I read them correctly) that the right exists because people in general have the right to do whatever, so long as there’s no law against it. The right exists because people just have these rights. That’s why I was talking about my own personal view which is that I don’t get that; I’ve seen people talking about “natural rights” (which I think is the kind of thing Abatis means) before, and I disagree with the idea. Or at least think it makes no sense.

The 2nd amendment recognizes a pre-existing right. It does say something, one of those things is that the right already existed. That’s what the constitution says. That’s what SCOTUS has said. The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.

And those things are separate but linked. The right* as defined* in the 2nd Amendment is that the government may make no law infringing on the right of the people to own or bear arms. That’s the purpose of it; to provide that protection. That’s the right that it defines.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Abatis

Well for me the declaratory clause can only be said to be a statement of why the AMENDMENT exists and as such it can not qualify, condition, modify or constrain the pre-existing right; it only states one reason (a political one) why the never surrendered / fully retained right is being forever shielded from federal government interference.

Of course it can. It can mean whatever the SCOTUS says it means. So far they have supported gun rights but that could change someday. As it stands that right is circumscribed same as any other right granted in the constitution. This thread asks what “arms” means and in the FFs day that was any weapon whatsoever. Obviously that is no longer true today. Where those restrictions lie is up to the SCOTUS.

It takes some tortured logic to ignore that statement in the second amendment. Scalia in Heller twisted the language into a pretzel to get around it. The language is there. Nowhere else in the constitution (excepting the preamble) did the FFs engage in rhetorical flourishes. Nowhere else did they provide a reason for any of the other bits. Why, in this one case, would they do that? Just slipped the editing process?

Also, it seems a bit odd that the ONE thing the FFs wanted to be sure all Americans had was a gun.

To me it does exist and it is being kept up. The 2nd Amendment’s prohibition on the government disarming the citizenry forever preserves the numerical superiority of armed citizens to standing army soldiers . . . Which ensures that the people can enforce any rescinding of their consent to be governed.

Back in 1788, Madison said that if the nation could maintain an army that comprised 1% of the population, those troops would be opposed by armed citizens 17 to 1. Today, with active duty and reserve armed forces numbering about 2.8 million, our 75 million armed citizens outnumber the “standing army” by 27 to 1.

Pure weekend warrior fantasy.

If it comes down to the citizens versus the US military the citizens are well and truly fucked. It wouldn’t even be close.

[Falchion]

@Whack-a-Mole

It takes some tortured logic to ignore that statement in the second amendment. Scalia in Heller twisted the language into a pretzel to get around it. The language is there. Nowhere else in the constitution (excepting the preamble) did the FFs engage in rhetorical flourishes. Nowhere else did they provide a reason for any of the other bits. Why, in this one case, would they do that? Just slipped the editing process?

You would agree, I presume, that the IP clause limits copyrights and patents to those works that “promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts”?

You would further agree, I presume, that the only way in which the federal government is permitted to “promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts” is by issuing patents and copyrights?

[Johnny_Ace]

I want to arm bears, dammit. Give those big game hunters something to think about.

[Abatis]

@Revenant_Threshold

I’m not sure I’d say that this was a “universally understood and acepted maxim of a republic”, given that my understanding is that historically speaking the US had a large role in defining those republican maxims, along with France. My republican history knowledge isn’t great, however. Do you have some cites for this point?

The idea goes back a couple thousand years, to Aristotle. Aristotle’s form of government included a large middle class in which each citizen fulfilled all three functions of self legislation, arms bearing and working.

Aristotle criticizes the constitution of Plato’s Laws because, despite its suffrage, it was oligarchical, one of its central features was a disarmed populace. According to Aristotle, “there are many things which Socrates left undetermined; are farmers and craftsmen to have no share in government . . .? Are they or are they not to possess arms . . .?”

The legal restriction of arms bearing to only the class entrusted with defense would lead to oppression by that class. “[T]he farmers have no arms, the workers have neither land nor arms; this makes them virtually the servants of those who possess arms In these circumstances the equal sharing of offices and honours becomes an impossibility.”

It was further explained in the treatises of Locke, Sidney, Montesquieu and Rousseau, which had a more immediate impact on the founders / framers.

@Revenant_Threshold

That seems illogical to me. If there’s a pre-existing reason, then point out the pre-existing reason - or point to the Ninth Amendment. You don’t need a new reason if there already is one. No, it makes more sense to me to say that this was the, or at least the prime, reason for the 2nd Amendment’s existence.

It isn’t expressing a “new” reason. You need to remember the impetus and origin of the provisions of the Bill of Rights. The anti-Federalists and the states demanded a bill of rights and once the Federalists gave in, the states offered their proposals which Madison edited / refined and presented to Congress. The right of the citizen to keep and bear arms in state constitutions was usually grouped with admonishments against standing armies and civil authorities always having power over the military. These all had the intent of limiting governmental power in military affairs and effect. The 2nd Amendment as it reads is a product of that (which I alluded to and you quoted but did not comment on).

The 9th and 10th Amendments were consolation prizes for the Federalists for surrendering their opposition to adding a bill of rights. They are recognition of Federalist argument that for the federal Constitution, a bill of rights would be dangerous and absurd. They stand as primers on constitutional interpretation, not substantive claims of liberty.

@Revenant_Threshold

Beyond that point we’d have to assume poor writing on the part of the writers, which, besides likely not being too popular, brings the whole question of trying to identify motives from the text into question.

And that you feel that way proves that the Federalists arguments against adding a bill of rights were on point.

@Revenant_Threshold

No, it doesn’t; the legality of conscription would seem to put paid to that notion.

Over time, Madison’s “1% of the total population” has proven to be the limit of government’s ability to maintain / provide for a standing army. As Madison noted that is “1/25th the number able to bear arms” with (in 1788) 3/4 of them “having arms in their hands”.

@Revenant_Threshold

…if they were allayed against each other. There’s zero guarantee so far as I can tell that “the people” would not arrange themselves alongside the soldiery so as to abrogate even their own rights, let alone the rights of some minority.

I am just relating the arguments of Madison. The conflict between the federal and state governments and between all government and the citizen was an all encompassing theme of the Constitution and bill of rights ratification period. The idea of a general militia was always geared towards resisting oppressive government action and defending the liberty of the people.

@Revenant_Threshold

History is replete with examples of dictactors and tyrants taking over a nation with the backing of the military… and the willing populace.

The difference in America was the acceptance of self-evident truths that the government is instituted to protect the inherent rights of the people and it is a duty of the people to throw off any government that violates the principles of its establishment.

@Revenant_Threshold

The right as defined in the 2nd was conceived. Otherwise there would be no need to have the 2nd Amendment.

I would suggest you read Federalist 84. The 2nd Amendment (along with the 1st) is a redundant prohibition on government re-affirming that it can not exercise powers it was never granted.

@Revenant_Threshold

You can of course talk about individual rights pre-government, but absent the 2nd those rights are significantly more constrainable; a big difference.

As Hamilton said in Federalist 84, arguing that adding a bill of rights to the constitution was unnecessary, dangerous and absurd:

[INDENT]“I . . . affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?”[/INDENT]

The argument was, government can only legitimately exercise the express powers granted to it and only to perform the duties assigned to it. The action of listing various liberty interests NOT included in the compact, would lead some to think that a power can be conjured to impact those interests through inventive reading of the provisions intended only to bind government – and that those interests not listed fall within the domain of government.

IOW, If you hire a handyman and assign him just the tacks of a handyman, do you really need to tell him he can’t dictate to you what you can read, or what you can say or what God you can worship or what gun you can own?

We see the Federalist fears come alive WRT the 2nd Amendment . . . the inventive readings and redefining of words, trying to invent power where none exists, is exactly why the Federalists resisted adding a bill of rights.

@Revenant_Threshold

And personally I don’t believe in any rights that don’t come from some agreement between parties. As a concept it doesn’t really make sense to me.

Feel free to personally reject the concept of inherent rights but in the USA we have a contract that demands all government to treat our fundamental rights as originating from another plane, above the legislative actions of man.

I find it interesting that you make mention of the 9th Amendment in one breath and then denounce the singular principle it exists to explain in the next breath . . .

[Abatis]

@Revenant_Threshold

Abatis is saying (if I read them correctly) that the right exists because people in general have the right to do whatever, so long as there’s no law against it. The right exists because people just have these rights.

Our system is based upon the principle that all power originally resides in the people. The people come together and decide upon certain foundational principles and surrender limited amounts of their power and assign government certain duties. This doctrine comes directly from Locke and Sidney and Hutchenson. All power not conferred is retained and those retained powers are then defined as rights. Some power was granted to the feds, some power is granted to the states, some powers are withheld from both governments and stand as immunities from both governments, rights – exceptions of powers not granted – retained by the people.

State constitutions, especially from the early states, are interesting. the first sections of Article I begins with statements of principle on the sovereignty of the people and holding that all governmental power emanates from the people. Article I proceeds to except out the rights of the people from the constitution BEFORE A SINGLE POWER IS GRANTED.

Here’s the constitution of my state, Pennsylvania, just as an example.

It hardly seems reasonable to argue that the states all ratified a federal constitution that violated those principles and allowed the feds to amass undefined and ever expanding powers at the detriment of the states and the citizens of their states.

@Revenant_Threshold

The right* as defined* in the 2nd Amendment is that the government may make no law infringing on the right of the people to own or bear arms. That’s the purpose of it; to provide that protection. That’s the right that it defines.

But SCOTUS, which tells us what the Constitution means and what it does has rejected that theory in boringly consistent fashion for going on 140 years (internal quotation marks removed):

[INDENT]
SCOTUS 1876: "The right . . . of bearing arms for a lawful purpose . . . is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; . . . "

SCOTUS 1886: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not a right granted by the constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, . . . "

SCOTUS 2008: "it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment , like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it shall not be infringed. As we said in . . . 1876 . . . , [t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, . . . "

[/INDENT]

The prohibition on government acting exists with or without the 2nd Amendment . . . which SCOTUS notes in Presser:

[INDENT]
“It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the states, and, in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the states cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms,”.

[/INDENT]

And now we are back again to what a republican form of government is and what the Constitution forces with its promise to forever provide a republican form of government. Here it means the states are forbidden to disarm its citizens – even without reference to the 2nd Amendment.

So much for incorporation!

.

[AHunter3]

@bizerta

This was prompted by a PBS show on Ruby Ridge.

Americans have the right to bear arms, but I see nothing in the Constitution that determines what arms are allowed, restricted, or inhibited. For example (A) why is a sawed off shotgun illegal? Isn’t that an “arm”? (B) automatic weapons. (C) IIRC, felons are not allowed to carry weapons. Is there something in the Constitution that forbids it? (D) 50 years ago, my father had an old shotgun that could hold five rounds. The “law” required him to put a wooden plug in it so that only three rounds could be fired without reloading. (E) If we have the right to bear arms, why can’t we just go into a gun store and cash-and-carry? (F) I’m sure I’d think of more if I had the time.

G) My own tactical thermonuclear warhead. Hey, if everyone had one, we’d finally learn to live in peace and treat each other fairly, right?

[Abatis]

@Whack-a-Mole

Of course it can. It can mean whatever the SCOTUS says it means. So far they have supported gun rights but that could change someday.

I doubt it. SCOTUS would need to completely reconstruct the rights theory it has operated under since its inception. Your side loves to dissect the RKBA out of the Bill of Rights and treat it like an outlier or orphan but it isn’t. I make the argument that the left’s hostility for the RKBA will draw into question the recognition of the right to privacy (and the derivative abortion, contraception and LGBTQ rights) and the mechanisms for its protection.

@Whack-a-Mole

As it stands that right is circumscribed same as any other right granted in the constitution.

Not granted thus not subject to the Supreme Court manipulation. I don’t need any judge to tell me what my rights are; his job is to inspect the law, hold it to the Constitution and decide whether the law exceeds the defined and limited powers granted to the legislature.

@Whack-a-Mole

This thread asks what “arms” means and in the FFs day that was any weapon whatsoever. Obviously that is no longer true today. Where those restrictions lie is up to the SCOTUS.

Which they have decided. US v Miller articulated those protection criteria (or tests) that the Supreme Court uses to determine if an arm is beyond the reach of government. The arm must be shown to be of the type:

In common use at the time by the general citiznry and
that constitute the ordinary military equipment and/or
that can be employed advantageously in the common defense of the citizens.

If the type of arm meets any one of these criteria the right to keep and bear that weapon must be preserved and the authority claimed by government to restrict its possession and use must be repelled. (The characterization “dangerous and unusual” can only be argued for, AFTER the arm fails all the protection criteria)

In Heller, SCOTUS only used one of those criteria to strike down the DC statutes; they held that handguns are in common use at the time by the general citizenry.

@Whack-a-Mole

It takes some tortured logic to ignore that statement in the second amendment.

No, it just demands we accept the foundational principles of the Constitution.

@Whack-a-Mole

Scalia in Heller twisted the language into a pretzel to get around it.

Scalia did not upset SCOTUS precedent. He did not disturb or twist anything. The twisting and pretzelling was done in the lower federal courts that ignored and dismissed SCOUTS and inserted the “militia right” and “state’s right” theories into the federal courts in 1942.

Heller, by re-affirming the individual right, invalidated those lower court opinions – U.S. v. Tot, 131 F.2d 261 (3 rd Cir. 1942) and Cases v. U.S, 131 F.2d 916 (1 st Cir. 1942) and their progeny. Lower, circuit and district court decisions are not precedent for SCOTUS.

@Whack-a-Mole

The language is there. Nowhere else in the constitution (excepting the preamble) did the FFs engage in rhetorical flourishes. Nowhere else did they provide a reason for any of the other bits. Why, in this one case, would they do that? Just slipped the editing process?

A theory which only makes sense if the right is being granted, given, created or established by the 2nd Amendment. Since the 2ndA only recognizes the right and says it shall not be infringed, all your jabberwocky is meaningless (but serves to show how prescient the Federalists were).

@Whack-a-Mole

Also, it seems a bit odd that the ONE thing the FFs wanted to be sure all Americans had was a gun.

Since “We the People” chose not to grant the “FFs” any power to conjure a thought about the personal arms of the private citizen, your point (whatever it is) has no merit.

@Whack-a-Mole

Pure weekend warrior fantasy.

Take your argument to James Madison.

@Whack-a-Mole

If it comes down to the citizens versus the US military the citizens are well and truly fucked. It wouldn’t even be close.

Perhaps. I know I wouldn’t want to live in an “America” when the government has killed all those willing to fight it . . . Like it would hold elections and care about what the people want . . . Why would it?

.

[Weisshund]

@Whack-a-Mole

If you are puzzled how Trumpians can believe, in the face of all evidence to the contrary, that 3 million illegal immigrants voted for Clinton in the last election look in a mirror. That’s you.

Why would anyone except some rubes picked out to look great for a TV slot believe that?
Illegal immigrants can not vote for anyone in a federal election.
Be a little bit hard for 3 million of them to sneak in being that they wouldn’t be listed in the computer.

And it’s hard to hide 3 million guys in a voting booth

[Weisshund]

@Whack-a-Mole

Pure weekend warrior fantasy.

If it comes down to the citizens versus the US military the citizens are well and truly fucked. It wouldn’t even be close.

No.
You see that is not what it would come down to if that day came.

It would come down to some government officials, and a very small fraction of the US armed forces.

The majority of the US Armed Forces would be with your weekend warrior group.
You may doubt that if you wish, but before you do, you might want to start asking a large amount of US Military personnel, because they are not going to agree with you.
I’d guess most of the government officials would be standing in the weekend warrior group as well.

It’s going to be a crowded group, hope they have enough coffee and donuts for 200 odd million.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Weisshund

It would come down to some government officials, and a very small fraction of the US armed forces.

The majority of the US Armed Forces would be with your weekend warrior group.

If the majority of the military opposes the small fraction of the government run amok you do not need weekend warriors. It’s over before it started.

At the end of the day laws only work because there is an enforcement mechanism. Andrew Jackson probably never said, “John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.” But he did ignore a Supreme Court order and what happened to him? Nothing.

I am even willing to bet the military would want to keep weekend warriors out of it. They’d just get in the way.

[XT]

@bizerta

This was prompted by a PBS show on Ruby Ridge.

Americans have the right to bear arms, but I see nothing in the Constitution that determines what arms are allowed, restricted, or inhibited. For example (A) why is a sawed off shotgun illegal? Isn’t that an “arm”? (B) automatic weapons. (C) IIRC, felons are not allowed to carry weapons. Is there something in the Constitution that forbids it? (D) 50 years ago, my father had an old shotgun that could hold five rounds. The “law” required him to put a wooden plug in it so that only three rounds could be fired without reloading. (E) If we have the right to bear arms, why can’t we just go into a gun store and cash-and-carry? (F) I’m sure I’d think of more if I had the time.

Skimming the thread I’m not sure anyone actually answered this (my apologies if it has been answered). Basically, the answer is that just because something is a right does not preclude it from some restrictions. The analogy often used is the 1st Amendment. There are some very narrow restrictions on your speech that have been deemed to be in keeping with the overall right. Kiddy porn, for instance, is illegal, and banning it does not violate the spirit of the Amendment. In terms of the 2nd, certain types of weapons or weapons modifications have been deemed worthy of tight restrictions for public safety reasons. While I don’t always agree with them, as long as you aren’t attempting to ban broad categories of weapons (say ‘all handguns’ or ‘all semi-automatic weapons’) you are on similar grounds to certain types of speech that are restricted or banned.

Since it seems the thread diverged at the first post, I figured I might as well address that too, even though it seems to be what is mainly under discussion:

[QUOTE=Bones Daley]
The Constitution states " A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Presumably, all types of firearms were allowed (and welcomed) back in the day when a well-regulated militia was a meaningful concept.
[/QUOTE]

You have to understand what concepts like ‘a well-regulated’ and even what the ‘militia’ was to parse out what this means. The term ‘well regulated’, in terms of the 18th century, didn’t mean ‘with a lot of regulation’, but instead meant ‘well formed’ as in ‘they have all the equipment they need’, and the ‘militia’ was basically all adult males (white of course) from 18-45 who could vote. So, ‘being necessary to the security of a free state’ (by which they meant a nation state, not the individual states) you need to have your (male, white) citizens between 18-45 who are the militia to armed (well regulated). So, it’s not the ‘well-regulated militia was a meaningful concept’ that is key and what’s changed, but instead how we’ve expanded the franchise beyond white males between 18-45, how militias are no longer necessary to the security of a free state, and how none of this matters anyway in terms of an individual right. Nor does any of this preclude regulation of that right…just as we have and will continue to regulate other rights such as free speech.

If you are interested, this guy pretty much nails my own stance on this issue (warning, YouTube video…also, conservative leaning channel).

[Czarcasm]

Why bother hashing out what “well-regulated” really means unless you think the term has some legal bearing on how the 2nd Amendment should be interpreted?

[XT]

@Czarcasm

Why bother hashing out what “well-regulated” really means unless you think the term has some legal bearing on how the 2nd Amendment should be interpreted?

If you are asking me, it’s simply because this is the crux argument that the gun-banning crowd always brings up (personal right verse collective right). Basically, that guns should be heavily restricted or banned from anyone not in a ‘well-regulated militia’. Personally, I think that the ‘well-regulated militia’ was in there as a justification for basically why the FF’s thought that citizens (white males of age) should be armed, since they really did think that armed citizens had a vital role in the security of the country. And also because they wanted to break from how the British did things, and arming the populace (who were mostly already armed anyway) showed a differentiation between them and us.

[Crane]

Thanks for the thoughtful and learned discussion above. I’m sure that is all correct.

However, were the Founders here today, I am certain they would not be in favor of arming a now diverse, urban, unregulated population with long range, rapid firing, magazine fed, semi-automatic weapons.

Crane

[Whack-a-Mole]

@XT

While I don’t always agree with them, as long as you aren’t attempting to ban broad categories of weapons (say ‘all handguns’ or ‘all semi-automatic weapons’) you are on similar grounds to certain types of speech that are restricted or banned.

We ban all sorts of “broad categories” of weapons. It’s not like some surface to air missiles are ok for private ownership.

[doorhinge]

@XT

If you are asking me, it’s simply because this is the crux argument that the gun-banning crowd always brings up (personal right verse collective right). Basically, that guns should be heavily restricted or banned from anyone not in a ‘well-regulated militia’. Personally, I think that the ‘well-regulated militia’ was in there as a justification for basically why the FF’s thought that citizens (white males of age) should be armed, since they really did think that armed citizens had a vital role in the security of the country. And also because they wanted to break from how the British did things, and arming the populace (who were mostly already armed anyway) showed a differentiation between them and us.

All of the rights listed in the U.S. Bill of Rights are the rights of individuals (aka We the People) and not those of the government. If the FF had chosen to arm a militia, or a well-regulated militia, or a government militia, or any other militia, they would have done so in the U.S. Constitution. The unalienable rights of the Bill of (Individual) Rights belong to the people.

[octopus]

@Chefguy

Also when all types of firearms meant muzzle loaders.

We also have the right to free speech, but there are restrictions (hate speech, inciting to riot, etc). Your rights are only such up to the point where they infringe on others’ rights. Also, the role of government is to protect its citizens. Sawed off shotguns are easily concealed, and felons are more likely to be repeat offenders. Automatic weapons are not illegal, but there are special permits required, IIRC.

So-called hate speech is not a crime in the US.

[Weisshund]

@Whack-a-Mole

If the majority of the military opposes the small fraction of the government run amok you do not need weekend warriors. It’s over before it started.

If any of the laws, checks and balances, etc work as intended, it’s over before anything starts, which is how it is supposed to work.

But we all know that sometimes things do not always work how they are supposed to.
Be it 50 or 500 years from now, if something happened that the system broke down and failed, it would have to be removed.

I am even willing to bet the military would want to keep weekend warriors out of it. They’d just get in the way.

Why? It is their fight, they have a right to fight it.

You aren’t just talking about a
“Old Harvey decides he doesn’t want to leave office, you people hang back here all nice and safe like, we will go remove Old Harvey, and we will tell you when it’s safe to hold a new election”

We would just have Old Harvey arrested, jailed, tried, and impeached.
But should Old Harvey pull enough power under his thumb to bring harm to bear against the people…

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends,** it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it**, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

The People have to, they can’t just sit and let someone else do all the work, take all the risk, freedom does not work that way.

[Weisshund]

@Crane

Thanks for the thoughtful and learned discussion above. I’m sure that is all correct.

However, were the Founders here today, I am certain they would not be in favor of arming a now diverse, urban, unregulated population with long range, rapid firing, magazine fed, semi-automatic weapons.

Crane

They might disagree?

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
-Benjamin Franklin

“I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”

• George Mason

“A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …”
-Richard Henry Lee

“And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …”
-Samuel Adams
“Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?”
-Patrick Henry
"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that … it is their right and duty to be at all times armed … "

“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