It says the states, specifically, must have armed citizens to prevent a tyrannical federal government:
. It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union "to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, RESERVING TO THE STATES RESPECTIVELY THE APPOINTMENT OF THE OFFICERS, AND THE AUTHORITY OF TRAINING THE MILITIA ACCORDING TO THE DISCIPLINE PRESCRIBED BY CONGRESS.‘’
By keeping the army, or ‘militia’ under the sole control of the states, it guaranteed the states were never disarmed and could effectively resist or even attempt secession if they saw fit. Which, in fact, was later tried.
Until the 14th amendment incorporated the bill of rights, the 2nd amendment only applied to the federal government, and in fact strict gun laws and bans were common throughout the 18th century.
I’m not going to debate an amateur (as an amateur to be fair) about something that already has a ruling. In 2008, DC v. Heller ruled that the ownership of firearms included the purpose of self defense independent of anything to do with a militia. Link
That said, the federalist paper you linked made a great case for a militia but did not talk about the People’s right to bear arms. It was also written 4 whole years before the 2nd amendment was ratified so using as an interpretation tool is not adequate. Similarly, it would make sense to me that if firearm bans were common throughout the 1700s, that in 1792 they would pass an amendment to counter that if they didn’t like it…
I don’t have in-depth knowledge about the 14th amendment and I don’t have time to look right now so I’ll ask… what/how does the 14th amendment have/do that implies an amendment which specifically states “The People” (a protected term, such as in "We The People), did not apply to The People? Federal or not, the meaning is the same. Unless I’m missing something.
That’s absolutely the opposite of what it says.
It says the states, specifically, must have armed citizens to prevent a tyrannical federal government:
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed29.asp
By keeping the army, or ‘militia’ under the sole control of the states, it guaranteed the states were never disarmed and could effectively resist or even attempt secession if they saw fit. Which, in fact, was later tried.
Until the 14th amendment incorporated the bill of rights, the 2nd amendment only applied to the federal government, and in fact strict gun laws and bans were common throughout the 18th century.
I’m not going to debate an amateur (as an amateur to be fair) about something that already has a ruling. In 2008, DC v. Heller ruled that the ownership of firearms included the purpose of self defense independent of anything to do with a militia. Link
That said, the federalist paper you linked made a great case for a militia but did not talk about the People’s right to bear arms. It was also written 4 whole years before the 2nd amendment was ratified so using as an interpretation tool is not adequate. Similarly, it would make sense to me that if firearm bans were common throughout the 1700s, that in 1792 they would pass an amendment to counter that if they didn’t like it…
I don’t have in-depth knowledge about the 14th amendment and I don’t have time to look right now so I’ll ask… what/how does the 14th amendment have/do that implies an amendment which specifically states “The People” (a protected term, such as in "We The People), did not apply to The People? Federal or not, the meaning is the same. Unless I’m missing something.