General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: The 2nd Amendment was NOT written "to protect us from our gov't," FFS... [View all]TygrBright
(20,733 posts)...constitute an "education," so I will meekly accept your exhortation to "be educated" on the topic, and will study some more. (Gee, what a sacrifice... !)
Your observations do highlight a deficiency in the OP, and I definitely did not adequately emphasize this: The major purpose of the Constitution was to weld together disparate former colonies. The former colonies had largely conceived of themselves as self-governing in the wake of the Revolution, and the establishment of a central government was threatening. The Constitution, by clearly delineating the structure and responsibilities of the Federal government, and the Bill of Rights, by clearly enumerating various limitations on the Federal government's authority, was a way of reconciling the self-governing former colonies to the authority of the central government.
Nevertheless, if you look at the very specific "charters of rights" and "declarations of rights" made by the various colonial governments in the run up to the Revolution, and to the documents and memoranda submitted by the newly-formed state governments in respect to the Constitutional convention, it is abundantly clear that the specific rights enumerated in the Bill represent both the common ground of liberties demanded, AND the obligation of the Federal government to ensure that those liberties not be abridged.
You cannot divorce the Bill of Rights from the Constitution. The Constitution creates the powers of the central government and the authority of the Federal Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution in precedence over the states' authority. That is, where the Constitution speaks, it guarantees the rights of all citizens of the nation.
The restrictions in the Bill of Rights were never intended to apply only to the Federal Government. No state is permitted to set unreasonable bail, to quarter troops on the populace, to restrict freedom of speech, etc.
The framing of the Bill of Rights as limitations on federal power was intended to reassure states and citizens that the federal government would a) not infringe on the rights of citizens in these areas, AND b) not infringe on the rights of states to govern in areas not specifically restricted by the Constitution (see: Amendment 10.) In essence, this is to say that freedom of assembly and petition may not be denied by the federal government and, therefore, also not by state or local governments, but that since the Constitution says bupkus about how states will elect their state governments, that will be up to the states.
Nor did I state anywhere in the OP that the intent of the second amendment was to mandate anyone to have a gun or to mandate state militias-- merely that no governmental entity could restrict the ownership and maintenance of the weapons necessary for a well-regulated militia. No citizen is required to participate in a militia, no state is required to maintain a militia. Merely, no government may impede the functioning of a well-regulated militia by prohibiting the ownership and maintenance of the weapons required for such a militia.
The entire Constitution of the United States of America applies, and has always applied from the moment of it's final ratification, to every American state. No state is permitted to enact laws or regulations that are unconstitutional, such laws and regulations are not valid. That's how the multiple jurisdictions of our government cascade in authority to weld together many into one.
And a critical issue for that welding together and maintaining the integrity of the newly-formed nation was our right to defend our existence as a nation, by ensuring that a well-regulated militia may exist to ensure the security of the nation.
We have the right to defend our nation with a well-regulated militia. No jurisdiction of government may impede or abrogate this right, nor restrict us as citizens from participating in such a militia and owning and maintaining the weapons required for such service.
We also have the right to think and say wackjob shit about black helicopters and FEMA concentration camps, and the right to skulk around in camo in the woods and drink beer with our fellow wackjobs, but that's protected by the FIRST amendment, not by the second amendment, and that right does not necessarily include the right to accumulate a huge arsenal of unregulated weapons that have nothing to do with defending our national sovereignty via a well-regulated militia.
specifically,
Bright
P.S. I don't claim to be the final authority on this, Constitutional scholars have been arguing about it for centuries and will continue to do so. But I do maintain that it is an interpretation well-grounded in historical context, Constitutional semantics, and legal, social, and economic traditions of representative democracy: at least as much as, if not more so than, the absolutist "GUNZ GUNZ GUNZ and MOAR GUNZ for anybody and everybody and the damn gummint can't do damn thing about it" interpretation.