The Second Amendment Isn’t Optional – It’s the Backbone of the Entire Constitution

[Elderberry]

Survival World  by John Peterson

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/gun-rights-defender-argues-the-second-amendment-isn-t-optional-it-s-the-backbone-of-the-entire-constitution/ss-AA1FNvqO#image=5

Gun Rights Defender Argues the Second Amendment Isn’t Optional – It’s the Backbone of the Entire Constitution


A Case from 1840 Still Matters Today


Heller spotlighted an 1840 Tennessee Supreme Court case, Aymette v. State, to explain how early American courts understood the Second Amendment. The case involved a man charged for carrying a bowie knife, but it became a foundational decision about the right to bear arms.

“The purpose of the Second Amendment,” Heller quoted, “is to hold those in power in awe.”

This wasn’t just a historical footnote. Heller revealed that Justice Antonin Scalia cited Aymette multiple times in the 2008 Heller decision. That deep link between history and modern law, Heller believes, is what gives the Second Amendment its strength.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Anybody know whether slaves had guns?

[DCPatriot]

Anybody know whether slaves had guns?

Michener  might have a reference in 'Chesapeake'.

Do recall the Turlocks along the Choptank River...

[DefiantMassRINO]

As an ignoramus, I'm gonna throw a possible different interpretation of the 2nd Amendment ...

The 2nd Amendment did not provide for every person to have a right to bare arms, rather, it provided the states the right to arm themselves, and regulate state militias, against a tyrannical Federal Government.

During the Civil War, there was not a single standing Army, rather there were state militiamen under Army leadership.

Unit identity was still based upon the state militia in which they served.

[Elderberry]

A Well-Regulated Militia

I’ve been thinking about that in the context of the second amendment—the right to bear arms—so I went back to read the intent of the founders.  I found the answer in Federalist #29 in which Alexander Hamilton explained the meaning of the phrase “a well-regulated militia.” To understand, however, it helps to put yourself in the context of 1789 America.

The War of Independence was still a fresh memory—closer in time to 1776 than we are today to 9/11.  The memory of that experience included a well-developed suspicion of standing armies as a tool of tyranny.  Just look at the Declaration of Independence.  Its 27 grievances against King George III included protests over:

•   stationing a standing army among the population in times of peace;

•   rendering military authority superior to civilian authority;

•   seizing private property to house troops;

•   protecting soldiers accused of crimes from trial; and

•   the crown’s prosecution of war, encouragement of insurrection against local authorities, and support for native nations’ attacks on the colonies. 

There are at least a half-dozen specific examples in our Declaration that warned about the threat to liberty of a standing army.

So the founders, suspicious that a standing army could become a tool of some future tyrant, created a system of checks and balances to thwart a federal army ever threatening the liberties of American citizens.  Their solution was a well-regulated militia. 

In 1789, a militia was not a self-appointed force of citizens in camo running around in the woods by themselves.  Militias would be raised by each state government, their loyalty and devotion to the new American republic was assured by the fact that they would be defending their families, their neighbors, and their homes.  Because they might someday have to operate as a combined force, the militias were to be “well-regulated”—meaning trained to standards set by the federal government. 

More: https://www.pellcenter.org/a-well-regulated-militia/