Time, and technology changes (a lot)!

Ever heard of the puckle gun?

It's actually a primitive machine gun that was invented before the revolution by James Puckle. So don't go shooting any Brits! :P

A detail. The amendment only states literally: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It does not GRANT a right... it only said that once you have the right it shall not be infringed. This does not mean the right cannot be revoked, as revoking is not infringement.

Hehe yeah, and the weapons have indeed changed a lot since the 2nd amendment came, eh?

Government cannot grant rights, it can only protect the or take them away. And revoking a right without due process would be an infringement due to definitional overlap.

I was only disassembling the amendment itself. Granting and revoking rights is therefore not part of the 2nd amendment itself, but parts of other kinds of laws.
This being said, people cannot rely on the 2nd amendment for the right to carry a gun itself... So a ban on guns would not violate this amendment itself nor would it conflict with this amendment. If you would have the right to a gun, and I make sure you'll never get a hold of one, then it's a different story, as that would be an infringement of the 2nd amendment. Do you still follow?

If you wonder now why most legal statements have such (overly) complex kinds of wording and grammar, it's clear now, I guess... The exact type of wording may not be liable for more than one explanation. The 2nd amendment however has a loophole here (and a large one). Other laws may tighten this up, but one thing is a fact. A right that has never been given, cannot be infringed. And 2nd amendment itself does not explicitly give the right. Only only said it may not be infringed.

"a ban on guns would not violate this amendment itself" Yes it would, look up infringe in a dictionary. There is not a loophole, you're just using a fallacy called a distinction without a difference.

"Infringe" only means that some right is violated, it does not say how the right is being obtained. Either you are too obsessed with the right to carry a gun you say this, or you need to check the meaning of the word "infringe" yourself. And I've actually looked that word up before making this statement, and also before I drew this conclusion years ago.

I've been researching the 2nd amendment thoroughly, as I really wanted to know what it said. And all it says about the right to carry a gun is that "it shall not be infringed". Not a single letter notes what gives you the right to carry a gun. And I said it before, and I'll say it again A RIGHT THAT HAS NEVER BEEN GIVEN CANNOT BE INFRINGED! The 2nd Amendment does not give this right, nor does it deny the right.

The exact text is: "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."

A militia does not necessarily need to be armed with firearms in order to be "well-regulated" (in fact the word "regulation" says nothing about people may or may not have, it only says something about how it's organized, which must be good), so that sentence says nothing at all, and the second part only says in different wording that "he who has the right to carry Arms, shall not be denied that right", but "he who has the right to carry Arms" is not defined in this text. And who are part of this "militia"? Civilians, yeah, but you don't want just ANY civilian in your militia (as then criminals have a free way in, too). When it needs to be "well organized" it's actually one reason more not just to arm anybody who wants to be armed, but to have a proper look who is armed and who is not. So in that context, just arming all civilians would even infringe this amendment if you disassemble the amendment completely.
Btw I wouldn't even DARE to think what would happen if a militia was not "well regulated".... <shudder>

LOL, I already looked up the word infringe before my first reply. Obviously your definition is lacking, because you got it wrong in such a way that makes a circular and thus fallacious argument.

Also nice to offer insults over my motives, rather than facts to counter what I said such as the definition you claim supports you case.

And as it is you "granted" argument can be applied to the first amendment, as you cannot limit or infringe as per definition a right that as not been given. In all you're still trying to make a distinction where none exists.

Infringe definition, "act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on." https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/infringe

Then I don't trust your source. That or you are lying, and I didn't try to insult your motives... I simply draw conclusions based on what you tell me. And indeed "undermine" is not the correct definition, but what it comes down to, but then we still come to the same point. Something that is not there cannot be undermined. The right is not granted, and as such it cannot be infringed, undermined, limited, or whatever word you can think of, so you appear to have a wrong meaning in your mind to a lot of words, which is troublesome. If you don't know the meaning of words used to explain another word, then you can never come to the right conclusions.

And now I said I solely kept myself to the 2nd am. But if you really need to bring up the first: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Well, I wonder why you bring that up, as its text is completely unrelated to the 2nd am. In short wording it means that you are free to have the religion you want, that you have the freedom of expression and that neither the congress nor government can forbid you to be free, and that the people can always criticize the government. Well, many free nations have that amendment in their constitutions (and nearly all of them forbid firearms, which they can since that amendment does not grant the right to carry a gun either. As a matter of fact, nothing in that amendment, not even a single letter refers to that, so I wonder why you brought it up).

I don't have to make a disctinction. The fact remains that the amendment does neither grant nor deny rights, only that a right cannot be infringed, but in order to be infringed the right must exist, and the 2nd amendment fails to do so. No matter how you put it. Also the first part of the amendment does not grant (nor deny) rights either, as that is only a motivation, not really an actual obligation nor prohibition. I am just taking the law letter by letter (which judges are btw also obligated to do).

I've seen big companies getting themselves in legal trouble due to rules with similar grammar as the 2nd amendment. If the amendment would state "everyone has the right to carry an arm, and this right hall not be infringed" THEN we got a clear situation, as then the right has been granted by this amendment.

Don't trust the oxford dictionary huh? Then you suggest I'm flat out lying and then say you don't insult my motives right after doing so with yet another distinction without a difference.

And applying a premise to another subject to show that it is untrue of is a common.

The rest seem to be you not understanding what a fallacy is applying a No True Scotsman because of it and repeating yourself like saying it enough times makes it right.

Either the oxford dictionary isn't right or you misinterpret it. Misinterpretation always leads to wrong explanations no matter how trustworthy the source.

And I think it's you who don't understand simple grammar mistakes. Not uncommon as I've dozens of quotes being taken out of their context because people reform their context. Sometimes even deliberately in order to make them more suitable to their needs. And I simply need to repeat myself and use different wording as I am looking to how you can finally understand the horrible truth, the second amendment does not grant nor deny rights.

Infringement is always an illegal action, so there the vague part begins. On the moment a gun would be banned by law, then denying a gun couldn't be an infringement unless it would conflict with a law explicitly allowing them (which the 2nd amendment doesn't do). However if you have a license to carry a gun even when banned but I will make sure you never get one... BOOM! Then the 2nd amendment is violated.... But not rights or licenses or whatever has been granted....

Also certain rights exist, because people could undermine stuff, and then infringement could undermine things. Cause => result. If I write a book and sell it but you put it on the internet so everyone can download, then you INFRINGE my copyrights, if you actually undermined me, is a different discussion. It could be possible you did, as that would be less income for me, but if you make me famous that way even to the point that a big Hollywood studio wants to buy the rights to make a movie of it, then you didn't undermine me.. On the contrary, but fact still remains that you infringed copyrights. (The Leisure Suit Larry games became very extremely popular and a commercial success thanks to copyright infringements on a very large scale).
Therefore, I wonder how "undermining" came in that dictionary as a description...

"Violation" is more like it But the reason why I repeat myself is because I need to drill it in. Something that doesn't exist cannot be infringed, nor can it be violated, limited, undermined, killed, removed, cut-off, or any definition the Oxford dictionary can come up with. The right needs to be GRANTED first, and after that it's possible. That is what it comes down to, and that is the only thing that matters and the only thing you keep refuting over and over, forcing me to repeat myself, and you don't take me seriously because you keep refuting the key fact in this entire discussion.

"And I didn't claim authority." Incorrect, the majority of what you say depend on me to trust you word as an authority on the subject or the word of those that you claim to be authorities made into hearsay by you putting it into your own words. In fact you in the sentence right after this one, did exactly that, you asked me to take your word that you did your homework.

You're not even trying anymore. I wonder too, after an account removal you came back just to prove how wrong I am, while I'm just a "random guy from the internet"... If I am why are you wasting your time on me. And it's clear again you failed to read my text properly, so I can I expect you to understand something is heavy and official as a constitution?

Asking to believe me when I tell you I did my homework is not claiming authority. It's just requesting not to be so damn arrogant and full of pride. There are people on the internet who DO KNOW where to look things up and how to disassemble texts to the core. And didn't claim to be among the authorities and that is your problem. You read half texts, and make assumptions on them, and it's therefore no wonder you come to the conclusions about the 2nd amendment that are not fully correct.

Like I said you had your account deleted and came back just to resume this discussion... Why would you waste your energy on me if I'm just a "random guy from the internet"? I wonder....

You know I'm not just a "random guy"? Or are you just so full of pride you want to have the final word? I wonder...

You're not wrong because you're a random guy on the internet, rather it is a self referring appeal to anonymous authority. I have no way to know if it is right, if you only give me your word. Just the same I as me saying stuff doesn't make it right either.

SCOTUS: That is more that 200 years of ruling, not just recent ones. Also attacking them doesn't make them wrong. You also have multiple other amendments added after the bill of rights with similar wording.

As to the existence of the right, In each any very amendment that lists a right except the 6th, it says the government cannot do something in regards to that right, and nowhere else does it say that a single right exists, the closest you'll get is the 9th amendment that says, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." I pointed this out several times, but you ignore that the whole constitution is written in exactly this manner. Therefore you must ignore the plain use of language not only when the constitution was written, but for each and every mention of a right, save one, in order to reach the conclusion that you have.

As per cutting down trees, if no trees existed, you cannot be banned from cutting them down. The ban itself would be evidence that trees to are believed to exist. Otherwise their would be no way to reference them for the ban. Also legally you argument is wrong, as you can be banned from destroying wildlife habitat for species that do not even exist in your area that couldn't even exist on the land itself and fined/jailed for breaking that ban.

And as per your definition argument earlier ,you need to interpreted this in the common language of the 18th contrary it was written in. You keep wanting to use 21st contrary legal contract law for interpretation.

You may came to know that I've learned to THINK FOR MYSELF! And not to trust authority that easily. And that something is over 200 years old doesn't make them right and you say they "rule"? A court that "rules"? If the a court "rules" anything then we are in trouble, as courts came to be because they don't "rule" but because they must judge those who rule. However that includes the president, and the president is the one who appoints them. Conflict of interest? Oh and SCOTUS is not the only high court that I cannot take seriously anymore. Outside of the U.S. some courts also have proven themselves to be unworthy to me. But I really hope that a SCOTUS doesn't "rule".... You don't want people who rule to be sitting on the chair of a judge. That's how dictatorships work by default, and wasn't the U.S. supposed to be a democracy?

And when it comes to 18th century and 21st century versions of English. I do know that languages change over the course of time, and that English is no exception. Still no matter how old a contract, we still come back to the one fact you keep trying to refute. Something that's not given cannot be infringed. PERIOD! 18th or 21 century.

And I've seen it more often that people (even judges) deliberately misinterpret laws in order to fit economical and political needs. And you know what the funny part is... In your argumentation about my cutting down trees metaphor you now confirm what I've been telling you for over 21912474987239874 times, only in different wording and grammar. And now you deem me wrong? By confirming me? I knew that simplified metaphors would help me here. Imagine the tree to be the right to carry arms. 2nd amendment states the right shall not be infringed... Lets convert that to cutting down the tree.... Hey, tree isn't there... How can I cut it down then?

All in al the amendment adds nothing, and once again, I really hope that SCOTUS doesn't rule! If they do, the U.S. would really be in trouble.

I'm not a where of any of my posts being deleted on this site, nor have I had more than one account here or on any other site (not that I can prove I have had only one account in any way, I alone know the truth on that). I have no notifications of such and no such posts exist on this meme and you provided no evidence of that. It looks to me you made assumptions that some deleted posts are mine.

And honestly I'm not holding trust of authorities against you. I simply have no real way to know if you have the knowledge to claim on the subject. It is as simple as that. And you telling me what I really mean in contradiction to what I really mean didn't really help with that at all.

Actually the name was deleted... not the content, that's how I KNOW, and didn't assume... Although I could be mistaken on that one, as I see so many trolls (and guys who are so full of "American Pride" they are blinded for facts when they are presented). here, that I can easily mix them up. And I told you before... And that's the core you're missing, is that I am solely focusing on the language used to formulate the amendment, not really on the content itself. But that doesn't seem to sink in... Although I'm very interested in law in order, so I do my homework in that, you don't need to know anything about law and order to come to my conclusions. All it takes is being good with LANGUAGE. You don't have to "screen" me or anything to know my backgrounds.

I touched a nerve so I am wrong before hand and you went all over the internet to come up with amendments that are unrelated, or even vaguer in terms of languages.... Then again unrelated topics are common in discussions such as these. I've been on the internet for... say twenty years now, so I know how people are when nerves are touched.

All I said is that a right that is not given cannot be infringed.. That's not a law.. that's LOGIC. And since the 2nd Amendment uses wording that does not explicitly grant this right, the 2nd Amendment is not enough to get guns banned, since the right is not explicitly given, so how can it be infringed? Like you cannot cut down a tree that never grew. Like you cannot murder somebody who has never come to life after conception. Like you cannot eat a sandwich that was never made and like you cannot drink a beer that was never brewed.
I surely want to believe official documentation exists that explicitly grants this right... I never said it didn't exist... I frankly don't know. That's why I asked for it, dozens of times, but you never presented it. Only unrelated amendments. Which amendment is next? The 22nd? That one is even more unrelated, I tell ya! If there is a rule or law or document explicitly granting the right to carry Arms, then the 2nd Amendment can protect this... The amendment itself does neither grant nor deny any rights. I've been telling that dozens of times now, and those are simple facts, for which you don't have to know anything about me, just use your eyes and READ! That's all I had to do! READ!

Branding me for a "random guy" was a very nice cover up for your lack of either will or ability to READ properly. Isn't it a laugh?

Yes, I must of misinterpreted that direct quote or the multiple sources I look at must all be wrong. You haven't even bothered to consider the possibility that you might be wrong and thus dismiss everything that disagrees with you as wrong automatically. The rest is you repeating yourself over and over and over as if saying it enough makes it true.

Like of course how nowhere in the constitution does it say that is grants any rights anywhere, as government does grant rights. Just saying that the rights exist is enough fr us to have them as a logical necessity. The only document for the US that I can think of for the granting of right would be the Declaration of Independence that states the creator endowed people with rights, which was written by the same people as the Constitution.

Additionally the Constitution does state that people have rights not mentioned in the document and your interpretation itself goes against constitutional law ruling that laws have infringed upon the right to bear arms.

So it come down to one person on the internet saying with any actual evidence that a enumerated right doesn't exist verses multiple source and over 200 years of legal experts looking at the issue. Given the one sided weight of the evidence, you really should at least consider the possibility that you made a fundamental error.

I have dismantled the exact text of the 2nd amendment, about 10 years ago, and taken it into very serious looks. This because word reached me that professional lawyers brought this grammar error up, and thus I wanted to know if they were right, and sorry to say so, but yet they are.

FACT: Literal definitions are ALWAYS useless in 100% UNLESS, there's a proper understanding and interpretation of the definition. Anyone moron could learn the exact wording of a definition, but interpretation is another, and many definitions are up there for multiple interpretations.

"as the government grants rights" you say, but that also gives the government the possibility to revoke that same rights, which has happened with many rights over the course of times, when there's need to. When the cops catch you while you are driving and drunk, and revoke your driving license as a result, they didn't infringe anything, they simply revoked the right, since you've proven not to be able to handle that right properly.

Also when every American civilian is granted the right by the government to carry a gun, that right can only truly enforced, through the 2nd amendment *if* this right is officially documented in the law, which the second amendment does not do, so other laws should then do that, but they are never discussed. Nor are any license documents ever presented in this discussion.

And don't get me on how the Oxford dictionary makes it definitions. If you own the best guitar in the world, but you don't know how to play it, that guitar is just as useless as sawdust on the floor, with the only difference that a guitar may still make a nice piece of decoration. If you use a hammer but don't know how to use it, you won't make anything with it.

And you think I'm your common internet troll, but that's your mistake, and I wonder if you understood the experts well. I'm a coder who was once overloaded with lies about coding and the liar told me that experts in his family told him that. Speaking to those experts later showed he didn't understand their statements at all.

Oh, and it wouldn't be the first time a legal loophole was undiscovered for many many years. Language interpretation is just a matter of logic thinking, and very important in legal issues. However humans often fail when it comes to logic.

Fact remains: The 2nd amendment does neither grant nor deny anything, it only says that those who has the right should not get that right infringed.

So basically every source including the SCOTUS that disagrees with you is wrong, and you'll only give me the word of a random guy on the internet to back it up. Because I say so, is a bad argument, no matter how many words you pack into it.

Okay, I am solely wrong because I am a "random guy from the internet" and you really don't know anything about me to come to that conclusion. Plus I don't take much value by the opinion of a SCOTUS with only judged installed by Trump who in turn as an NRA lobby behind him. OF COURSE THEY WOULD DISAGREE WITH ME!!! And they will in turn find every loophole they can find to deny that the 2nd amendment says in fact nothing at all (even without the current wording of that amendment the law would do what it says. Infringement is against the law in general). And "because I say so" is argumentation I never used. The question is how much longer they can keep it up though.

But I did ask for documentation where it was stated that the right to carry Arms was explicitly granted. The 2nd amendment doesn't grant nor deny anything, it only says that a right (which must therefore (pure logic my friend) exits) will not be infringed. If the law says I may not cut down trees, and there are no trees around me, I cannot cut them down... You say that even the SCOTUS appears to think I can.... (makes me worry even more)... And so a non-existent right cannot be infringed... I'm not even speaking in terms of law and order, but in language, and grammar, and the latter is something I work a lot with, after having to check official documents and promotion material for such errors for several foundations. That being said, I am not just a "random guy from the internet". Preventing legal issues was one of the reasons I had to do this work. I shall admit I make a lot of spelling/grammar errors in my daily speech, but you cannot expect anybody to watch their language all the time. And you bring up dictionaries, the SCOTUS and much more things, failing to use your own eyes, and insight on grammar and language, and disassembling one single amendment constructed out of two short sub-sentences word by word. In which the first sentence does not really make a rule but is a (very subjective) motivation, and the second says nothing at all, as it once the right has been given infringement would be against the law anyway even without this amendment. But you told me the government grants rights... Well were is the decree, document, or other things that explicitly gives this right? I keep asking for that, but every time I ask such important questions about things the question is ignored. I know why... By ignoring that question people don't have to admit it isn't there, right?

You don't trust authority, yet you want me to take your word at several things that you have no citation for with "I am not just a "random guy from the internet"." to assert that you have an authority that I should listen to. You are a random person on the internet by definition, despite your claims otherwise. These basic contradictions shows your word is not to be trusted.

You are also back onto definition of infringement without context, rather after it was shown that it can mean more than what you say, and then finally getting what equivocation is and offering a argument against they very one you just gave me. This shows your authority on what word means is suspect at best and not to be taken as an authority.

You also overlook what ruling means in the judicial context and sub your own definition. This is evidence your authority on what wording means is lacking.

You also ignored my statement on how the constitution lists right all together. There is a cleat pattern of wording that would mean we have no rights at all under your argument, but the constitution directly says otherwise, which I quoted and you ignored. But you ignore counterevidence and pretend it doesn't exist, showing your authority is not one to be listened to.

You'd also have to completely ignore that the 9th amendment says for your argument to hold, which you keep doing. Again showing that your word should be counted as evidence. By the 9th a right doesn't have to be granted by the constitution to exist. It also means listed rights also exist by a plain reading of the 9th language.

In all I think you have developed tunnel vision in regards to your own opinion and thus have become biased enough to be blatantly wrong and still not admit it.

I trust only those who deserve my trust and the authorities are not really trustworthy at this moment. And I didn't claim authority. A "random guy" just shouts things without doing his homework, and I did.

Also I think it's a waste of time to give you lessons about the loophole. My evidence was irrefutable but you keep taking in nonsensical argumentation to prove me wrong. Just because "the court says so" isn't good enough. If that was the case there would also never be an innocent mail in jail, you know. And even in juridical ways judges don't rule. That is the prime pillar of a state of justice. The separations of power. Judges don't rule. They only have to judge what comes on their plate and must weight what they see and come to a verdict. Judges are not allowed to "rule".

And I never ignored the 9th amendment. I only said the 2nd amendment has a loophole, but I did keep the possibility open that other amendment laws or documentation could keep things open. By the way the text in the 9th amendment is just as vague (if not vaguer) than the 2nd.

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people"

It only says you cannot deny other people rights to certain things. But if a constitution disqualifies ANY form of legal meaning is when it contains words such as "certain". What is "certain"? That could be anything and in the same time nothing. When does a right fall under the category "certain"? If the right to carry an Arm is a "certain right"... You appear to believe it does as you are sure that would lock my argumentation, but actually all this amendment does is taking up space. My case still stands... I may not deny a "certain right" exists... But first of all the definition of "certain right" is missing, which is too vague to bind any legal conclusion to, second it does not state the right to carry an Arm exists, so I cannot violate this amendment by saying so.

Oh and the only one living in tunnel vision here is you. And overall I only stated facts. If I said "guns are bad" or "guns should be outlawed" then I'm stating opinions. It's the easy way out to turn facts into opinions, but that's not the way to win. Language is a hard thing you know. There's a reason why the most famous software license the GPL does not allow translations to be used in court, just to prevent any loopholes that are inevitable in translation. Looks like they gave things a more proper thought.

"I wonder too, after an account removal you came back just to prove how wrong I am" I never had an account removal or deletion on imgflip.

And yes you claim authority on nearly each and every post, including the last two when you also claim that you are not, and thus expect me to take your word on things based of that authority. It's like you only want to use one of many definitions of the word authority and overlook the one that I actually using so you do not have to admit to it and use a No True Scotsman on top of it.

You also assume what I read with any way to actual know for sure. You can suspect, but these assumption are quite something.

And you even go as far as to tell me what I really mean when I say you're a random guy on the internet and then on top of that claiming you know that I know my use is wrong. It's as if you do not understand what it means in common use while claiming knowledge of such things.

And I have considered just not replying for a couple days now, I do like debate, but this seems to be going nowhere on each side.

I did see some [deleted] on posts of yours, and lateron on I see posts with the exact wording and opinions... You don't fool me...

And you're not debating. You just pushing things through my head denying facts I presented based on analysis, and you probably don't even know how I think about gun posession in general, since I never discussed that in this particular thread. This is hardly a debate... rather a show of accepting or denying facts.

I know I can be stubborn, but you know what the joke is... This time I'm not... I don't have to change my opinion because I am not even talking about that. :P

Just a silly error in an important document (very important), that is all I pointed out. I even showed how that error could be fixed. Of course, when you keep in mind how much work it is to change a constitution it's not so easy to apply that fix, but still...

Of course it's pretty rich you hold distrust towards the authorities against me, while it's pretty American thing not to trust authorities in general, and hey, distrust towards the authorities is what I hear often when people defend the right to carry a gun itself. However the if it's a good thing to carry a gun... Was not discussed... Just a little language error and you got berserk all over it and you do everything to accuse me of being great, or make be believe I got an superiority complex and blah blah blah..

I touched a nerve, and you feel damaged in your pride. That is something I dare to safely ASSUME by now... Or is it rather a CONCLUSION and not an ASSUMPTION?

Pretty epic, am I right?

If a population is to defend themselves they have to keep up with modern technology. If not you get what happened to the Aztecs all over again.

And check this out too.
https://warriortimes.com/2011/04/24/what-happens-when-governments-disarm-their-citizens/

I don't know much about those things but I dare say some former soldiers who worked with them would know a weakness. Still, they can't stop everyone. While it might be hard to shoot down a drone without the right equipment, a bunch could storm the operating base where they are controlled.

If it is so futile to go up against a totalitarian government with what is available to civilians why does the government want to take away what little we have?
It's not because they truly care about us.
They knew asbestos was bad for people yet they continued to allow it's use..?
It's because they fear us. We are a people full made up of retired military and police and the rest of us are patriots at heart who would fight for our liberties.

They know their history. Unlike most Americans. They know how easily an unarmed population can be controlled. And they know how difficult it would be to enslave millions of armed freedom loving people!

Ah, a ghost gun. I see, or rather I don't. Still looks like it has the attached flamethrower and one million round magazine.

It's beautiful.

This is the stupidest argument against guns and the loony left is always trying to make it work.
The The founders intended that there be PARITY of weapons types and superior numbers of armed civilians with said weapons than the any standing army the government could raise.
"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

"...the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone..."
- James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
- William Pitt (the Younger), Speech in the House of Commons, November 18, 1783

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
- Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."

"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."
- St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803