[TRIGGER]

Sonart here is #46.

"To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops . . . . Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."

I think you should read it again. I see no mention of state Militias. It talks of "Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation",
Americans arms not state arms. Being that the population of the US was approx. 800,000 back then, Madison meant by a militia half a million strong that militia would be every able bodied man.

Lets not forget Hamilton #29 you should read the whole thing. Here’s some of it.

“But though the scheme of disciplining the whole nation must be abandoned as mischievous or impracticable; yet it is a matter of the utmost importance that a well-digested plan should, as soon as possible, be adopted for the proper establishment of the militia. The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate extent, upon such principles as will really fit them for service in case of need. By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.''

George Mason in the debate on the ratification of the Constitution before the Virginia assembly said: "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." Mason was also the co-author of the second amendment. In his Fairfax County Militia plan wrote " A well-regulated militia, comprised of Gentlemen, Free-holders, and other Freemen was necessary to protect our ancient laws and liberty from the standing army...And we do each of us, for ourselves respectively promise and engage to keep a good Fire-lock in proper order& to furnish ourselves as soon as possible with, & always keep with us one pound of gunpowder, four pounds of lead, one dozen gun flints, and a pair of bullet moulds, with a cartouche box or powder horn and a bag of balls."

In Pennsylvania patriot and statesmen Noah Webster wrote, in advocating the ratification of the Constitution, "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every kingdom 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 that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States."

You see the people had just finished fighting a bloody war to throw off a tyrannical government. The armed public is what made that victory possible; do you really think they would give up that leverage that made their freedom possible and leave the door open for another to take it’s place?

Even though the federalist papers have no standing in law they are the communication of the founders with the people who had to vote to ratify the constitution. The papers give the people the affirmation of their rights and responsibilities to the nation.

Slavery was acceptable when the constitution was ratified. Some of the Fathers didn’t agree with it. Virginian George Mason that slaves "bring the judgment of Heaven on a country," the continuance of slavery was clearly sanctioned in the U.S. Constitution, although the words slave and slavery are not found anywhere in the document. Since slaves were considered property the fathers by leaving out the words slave and slavery from the language of the constitution didn’t condemn them to stay slaves but were allowing for their inevitable assention from it. Which happened less than a half century later. As far as the women’s vote that was the culture of most nations back then. Which does continue in some cultures to today as does slavery. Your mention of these facts doesn’t detract from the constitution or it’s framers.

In the first 10 amendments of the constitution are the affirmation of the rights of the people. The militia in the second amendment is the whole people as Mason stated in his debate on ratification.

That's nice, but it didn't answer my question, did it? What would be considered the responsible use of such weapons by a private citizen?


If nothing else as a deterrent to tyranny. Besides you don’t have to have a responsible use for anything else you would possess, do you? All the weapons you mentioned are not really practical to be privately owned since they degrade over time and become unstable. But that shouldn’t prevent you from owning them if you chose to. But don’t for get that the people are the masters of this house not the government.