US Supreme Court and 2nd Amendment

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
I did not know that. Kudos to Oregon for going at least that far. Though I don't see why other CHL holders shouldn't be likewise allowed to carry in the buildings.

ZV

I don't see it as an unreasonable restriction. You wouldn't let some stranger, CHL or not, carry in your own home, would you?

1) My home is not a public building like a school is.
2) I would have no problem with a friend, acquaintance, business associate, etc carrying in my home (regardless of CHL status) as being in my home assumes that I have already evaluated the person as "safe".
3) Unknown people don't get invited into my home in the first place.

It all comes back to the first thing on that list though. A school is a public building. It is not a "home".

Statistically speaking, an armed CHL holder is safer to be around than an unarmed person who does not have a CHL. There is no logical reason for prohibiting CHL holders from carrying on school grounds. There are many emotional reasons, but statistically speaking there is less risk from a CHL holder than a non-CHL holder.

ZV

I'm just gonna assume you don't have any children.

What a load of ignorant horseshit.

I have children and he is 100% correct, and supported through all credible research and statistics. Having kids doesn't suddenly rob you of the ability to make an informed, rational decision.

 

[ElMonoDelMar]

Originally posted by: Craig234
Are you saying that rocket launchers and nuclear weapons aren't military-grade weaponry?

If one purpose of the 2nd amendment is for the public to be able to battle a corrupt government, then shoudln't they need far more advanced weaponry like those rocket launchers? They can hardly fight our modern military with handguns, and so the second amendment is not working.

Scalia wrote that the purpose of the 2nd is for self-defense from criminals and from the oppressive government. He also wrote that SBS's, nukes and bazookas aren't common among the people for self-defense (as handguns, rifles and shotguns are).

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
I did not know that. Kudos to Oregon for going at least that far. Though I don't see why other CHL holders shouldn't be likewise allowed to carry in the buildings.

ZV

I don't see it as an unreasonable restriction. You wouldn't let some stranger, CHL or not, carry in your own home, would you?

1) My home is not a public building like a school is.
2) I would have no problem with a friend, acquaintance, business associate, etc carrying in my home (regardless of CHL status) as being in my home assumes that I have already evaluated the person as "safe".
3) Unknown people don't get invited into my home in the first place.

It all comes back to the first thing on that list though. A school is a public building. It is not a "home".

Statistically speaking, an armed CHL holder is safer to be around than an unarmed person who does not have a CHL. There is no logical reason for prohibiting CHL holders from carrying on school grounds. There are many emotional reasons, but statistically speaking there is less risk from a CHL holder than a non-CHL holder.

ZV

I'm just gonna assume you don't have any children.

What a load of ignorant horseshit.

I have children and he is 100% correct, and supported through all credible research and statistics. Having kids doesn't suddenly rob you of the ability to make an informed, rational decision.

It seems to have with you.

I'm as pro-gun rights as can be, but it's crossing the line to extremism to argue in favor of letting just anyone carry a gun in elementary school classrooms.

Don't fall back that you didn't mean elementary schools, because that was never defined. And don't fall back on CHL holders only, because the very concept of CHL's/CCW's is itself a limitation of 2nd amendment rights, now comparable (by SCOTUS decision) to saying I need a license to speak freely. IOW, you've got a clear-cut conflict here.
That's not a problem if you take yesterday's victory for what it was. Push the extreme and demand more and you'll open the door to fsck that all up.

 

[bobcpg]

Tell me something, what/who is at fault that I misspelled the word below, Me or my Keyboard?

Ammendment

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
I did not know that. Kudos to Oregon for going at least that far. Though I don't see why other CHL holders shouldn't be likewise allowed to carry in the buildings.

ZV

I don't see it as an unreasonable restriction. You wouldn't let some stranger, CHL or not, carry in your own home, would you?

1) My home is not a public building like a school is.
2) I would have no problem with a friend, acquaintance, business associate, etc carrying in my home (regardless of CHL status) as being in my home assumes that I have already evaluated the person as "safe".
3) Unknown people don't get invited into my home in the first place.

It all comes back to the first thing on that list though. A school is a public building. It is not a "home".

Statistically speaking, an armed CHL holder is safer to be around than an unarmed person who does not have a CHL. There is no logical reason for prohibiting CHL holders from carrying on school grounds. There are many emotional reasons, but statistically speaking there is less risk from a CHL holder than a non-CHL holder.

ZV

I'm just gonna assume you don't have any children.

What a load of ignorant horseshit.

I have children and he is 100% correct, and supported through all credible research and statistics. Having kids doesn't suddenly rob you of the ability to make an informed, rational decision.

It seems to have with you.

I'm as pro-gun rights as can be, but it's crossing the line to extremism to argue in favor of letting just anyone carry a gun in elementary school classrooms.

Don't fall back that you didn't mean elementary schools, because that was never defined. And don't fall back on CHL holders only, because the very concept of CHL's/CCW's is itself a limitation of 2nd amendment rights, now comparable (by SCOTUS decision) to saying I need a license to speak freely. IOW, you've got a clear-cut conflict here.
That's not a problem if you take yesterday's victory for what it was. Push the extreme and demand more and you'll open the door to fsck that all up.

Not at all. I 100% support carrying into elementary schools. I 100% carrying everywhere, or at the very least every unsecured location (ie you don't have to pass through a limited and guarded access area while being protected by others). A concealed permit holder is as safe as a human being can be. There will still be incidents, of course, but they are statistically insignificant compared to the enormous good they can do. The right to protect yourself is absolute and extends everywhere. If a person can protect themselves at home, they can protect themselves at work, in a classroom, on the street, or any other place period. There is no logical argument against it, and no statistical support against it.

Now, I'm not necessarily saying the ONLY right program is like Vermonts. I'm willing to entertain 'REASONABLE' regulation. I'm willing to accept CHL/CCW programs for licensing. Make it 18 or over (or 21 if you insist, but that's a whole different argument really), require a background check including mental health release (ie you've never been involuntarily committed or ruled to be a danger), require a training class...hell you can require a piss test for all I care. However, once you are trained and found eligible to carry a firearm that right should be absolute and uninfringable by ANY source. Would I rather it just be an open right? Sure, but that's not the compromise required of a large and diverse nation.

This isn't extremism, it's common sense.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: ElMonoDelMar

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: ElMonoDelMar
-snip-
(Not that there is a right to grow pot, but you get the idea.)

You're a Dem, thus I presume you consider yourself a liberal.

I'm a conservative, and I think there IS a right to grow pot in your house.

It's a strange world.

Fern

My ideals are closer to libertarian thinking and that's what I would probably consider myself now. I said I'm a Dem because I'm actually still registered as such. My point still stands as I still hold a lot of more liberal viewpoints on most social issues.

Either way, I still don't see how anyone has a RIGHT to grow pot. Aren't most, if not all, of our natural and legal rights listed in the Constitution? Unless you're saying that having the right to liberty gives you the right to grow pot? That seems like a stretch to me.

I'll be much shorter than Craig234 in my explanation. See the 10th Amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

I'm a "people" referred to above. The Constitution does NOT mention that growing pot is a power of the federal government. Hence, it's reserved to me, a "people".

I can't recall at the moment how this survived Constitutional challenge, I think it was under the interstate commerce clause, and that's just bullsh!t IMO.

Fern

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Craig234
-snip-
If one purpose of the 2nd amendment is for the public to be able to battle a corrupt government, then shoudln't they need far more advanced weaponry like those rocket launchers? They can hardly fight our modern military with handguns, and so the second amendment is not working.

As I have noted before in other 2nd threads, the SCOTUS has created a conundrum for themselves along this line.

I believe the case was Miller, where they found no 2nd Am. right for having a sawed-off shotgun because it wasn't ordinarily used as a militia/military weapon.

Rocket launchers, grenades etc? Yeah, these are ordinarily used for that purpose. So what would they have done had Miller been toting a rocket launcher?

The peeps wearing black robes aren't geniuses IMO, and they don't always get it right.

Fern

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: ElMonoDelMar
Scalia wrote that the purpose of the 2nd is for self-defense from criminals and from the oppressive government. He also wrote that SBS's, nukes and bazookas aren't common among the people for self-defense (as handguns, rifles and shotguns are).

Lately I've been busy at work, and frankly kinda of lazy; so I haven't read the case yet.

But based on what you say, seems now that the court has ruled in favor of both a collective right (militia) and an individual right (self-defense) we may have some interesting cases.

If you have weapon, which right are you exercising? Better not be a rocket launcher if it's the self defense right, but what if you claim your "militia right"? You know, the ole "I was on my way to target practice with my militia"?

Since it's a now recognized self-defense right, what about cities that ban knives in excess of 3" (lots of those). Are they now interfering with your individual right under the 2nd?

Fern

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
I did not know that. Kudos to Oregon for going at least that far. Though I don't see why other CHL holders shouldn't be likewise allowed to carry in the buildings.

ZV

I don't see it as an unreasonable restriction. You wouldn't let some stranger, CHL or not, carry in your own home, would you?

1) My home is not a public building like a school is.
2) I would have no problem with a friend, acquaintance, business associate, etc carrying in my home (regardless of CHL status) as being in my home assumes that I have already evaluated the person as "safe".
3) Unknown people don't get invited into my home in the first place.

It all comes back to the first thing on that list though. A school is a public building. It is not a "home".

Statistically speaking, an armed CHL holder is safer to be around than an unarmed person who does not have a CHL. There is no logical reason for prohibiting CHL holders from carrying on school grounds. There are many emotional reasons, but statistically speaking there is less risk from a CHL holder than a non-CHL holder.

ZV

I'm just gonna assume you don't have any children.

What a load of ignorant horseshit.

I have children and he is 100% correct, and supported through all credible research and statistics. Having kids doesn't suddenly rob you of the ability to make an informed, rational decision.

It seems to have with you.

I'm as pro-gun rights as can be, but it's crossing the line to extremism to argue in favor of letting just anyone carry a gun in elementary school classrooms.

Don't fall back that you didn't mean elementary schools, because that was never defined. And don't fall back on CHL holders only, because the very concept of CHL's/CCW's is itself a limitation of 2nd amendment rights, now comparable (by SCOTUS decision) to saying I need a license to speak freely. IOW, you've got a clear-cut conflict here.
That's not a problem if you take yesterday's victory for what it was. Push the extreme and demand more and you'll open the door to fsck that all up.

Normally you don't get to change arguments in the middle, but I'll let you get away with that little disingenuous tactic this time. This argument was about allowing CHL holders in schools, you're the one introducing premises halfway through the debate.

Still, I also have no problem with removing the licensing requirement and still permitting firearms anywhere. You yourself have pointed out that even cross-culturally there is no link between handgun possession and the rate of violence. That means that there's no logical reason to believe that a man with a handgun is statistically no greater threat to anyone than a man without a handgun. Bringing up the idea of elementary schools serves no logical purpose and can only be intended as a means of clouding the argument by introducing irrelevant emotional appeals.

There is absolutely zero logical reason to believe that an inanimate object like a handgun will, by itself, create increased risk for others in the area.

Besides, the only people who obey the prohibition on firearms are people who are already no risk. The people who will cause problems simply carry their weapons anyway. A "gun free zone" merely advertises the fact that any potential victims will be unarmed; it does not prevent violence. There is no statistical evidence to assume that a gun free zone actually prevents any violence.

Your argument is based purely on irrational emotion.

ZV

 

[ElMonoDelMar]

Originally posted by: Fern
Lately I've been busy at work, and frankly kinda of lazy; so I haven't read the case yet.

But based on what you say, seems now that the court has ruled in favor of both a collective right (militia) and an individual right (self-defense) we may have some interesting cases.

If you have weapon, which right are you exercising? Better not be a rocket launcher if it's the self defense right, but what if you claim your "militia right"? You know, the ole "I was on my way to target practice with my militia"?

Since it's a now recognized self-defense right, what about cities that ban knives in excess of 3" (lots of those). Are they now interfering with your individual right under the 2nd?

Fern

Based on my understanding of the decision citizens have a right to use weaponry common among regular citizens for self-defense or militia use. Missile launchers aren't common among citizens so they do not apply.

I sure hope the knife laws get overturned as well. The entire state of Illinois sort of has a murky ban on knives over 3".

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: ElMonoDelMar
-snip-
Based on my understanding of the decision citizens have a right to use weaponry common among regular citizens for self-defense or militia use. Missile launchers aren't common among citizens so they do not apply.

Hmmm... That would be at odds with the Miller decision.

Fern

 

[ElMonoDelMar]

Isn't that in agreement with the Miller decision? I thought the rationale for banning a SBS was that it wasn't common in use.

Edit:

United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.

So I think what they're getting at is that taking out tanks and mowing down waves of your enemies isn't a "common lawful purpose".

Moar Edit:

Upon further reading, the court was saying that militias were formed by common citizens bringing with them common arms that they would have used for hunting or self-defense.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: ElMonoDelMar
Isn't that in agreement with the Miller decision? I thought the rationale for banning a SBS was that it wasn't common in use.

They said that the sawed-off shotgun not normally used as militia/military type weapon. Had nothing to do with whether or not normally used by citizens.

The "not normally used by citizens" tests seems like sloppy thinking to me.

For example:

The government outlaws weapon *X*. People go to court about weapon *X* being outlawed. Court then says, weapon *X* not normally used by citizens so law is OK. Well if the g@d d@mn thing was outlawed it sure as h3ll wouldn't be commonly used, would it?

I think I've got the Miller case bookmarked, I'll try and look it up and post back with quotes.

Fern

Edit: From Miller:

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense

Link to case

 

[ElMonoDelMar]

Originally posted by: Fern
They said that the sawed-off shotgun not normally used as militia/military type weapon. Had nothing to do with whether or not normally used by citizens.

The "not normally used by citizens" tests seems like sloppy thinking to me.

For example:

The government outlaws weapon *X*. People go to court about weapon *X* being outlawed. Court then says, weapon *X* not normally used by citizens so law is OK. Well if the g@d d@mn thing was outlawed it sure as h3ll wouldn't be commonly used, would it?

I think I've got the Miller case bookmarked, I'll try and look it up and post back with quotes.

Fern

You'll have to thumb through the Miller case. I haven't read it and don't have much time to.

The quote I posted above was from the court's opinion in the Heller case. So at the very least they don't seem to think they are contradicting themselves.

And I had the very same thoughts you did about what weapons *would* have been common had they not been outlawed. I mean a Glock 18 would be really awesome for self-defense and I think very common among people who could afford it.

Edit:
I guess they did packpeddle a bit on the Miller case.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: ElMonoDelMar
Isn't that in agreement with the Miller decision? I thought the rationale for banning a SBS was that it wasn't common in use.

They said that the sawed-off shotgun not normally used as militia/military type weapon. Had nothing to do with whether or not normally used by citizens.

The "not normally used by citizens" tests seems like sloppy thinking to me.

For example:

The government outlaws weapon *X*. People go to court about weapon *X* being outlawed. Court then says, weapon *X* not normally used by citizens so law is OK. Well if the g@d d@mn thing was outlawed it sure as h3ll wouldn't be commonly used, would it?

I think I've got the Miller case bookmarked, I'll try and look it up and post back with quotes.

Fern

Edit: From Miller:

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense

Link to case

I haven't read the notes to Miller in a long time, or the briefs which were contributed, but if I remember correctly there was very little in the way of historical research for the case. I'm all for precedent, but if it was based on faulty or partial information then shouldn't we abandon it in favor of the best information available at the time?

I bring it up because the briefs presented for Heller were pretty comprehensive (on both sides). If the court had more to go on it's only reasonable that they would arrive at a different conclusion.

 

[Fern]

Well, how the heck do you have a real militia without militia/military weapons?

Fern

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
I did not know that. Kudos to Oregon for going at least that far. Though I don't see why other CHL holders shouldn't be likewise allowed to carry in the buildings.

ZV

I don't see it as an unreasonable restriction. You wouldn't let some stranger, CHL or not, carry in your own home, would you?

1) My home is not a public building like a school is.
2) I would have no problem with a friend, acquaintance, business associate, etc carrying in my home (regardless of CHL status) as being in my home assumes that I have already evaluated the person as "safe".
3) Unknown people don't get invited into my home in the first place.

It all comes back to the first thing on that list though. A school is a public building. It is not a "home".

Statistically speaking, an armed CHL holder is safer to be around than an unarmed person who does not have a CHL. There is no logical reason for prohibiting CHL holders from carrying on school grounds. There are many emotional reasons, but statistically speaking there is less risk from a CHL holder than a non-CHL holder.

ZV

I'm just gonna assume you don't have any children.

What a load of ignorant horseshit.

I have children and he is 100% correct, and supported through all credible research and statistics. Having kids doesn't suddenly rob you of the ability to make an informed, rational decision.

It seems to have with you.

I'm as pro-gun rights as can be, but it's crossing the line to extremism to argue in favor of letting just anyone carry a gun in elementary school classrooms.

Don't fall back that you didn't mean elementary schools, because that was never defined. And don't fall back on CHL holders only, because the very concept of CHL's/CCW's is itself a limitation of 2nd amendment rights, now comparable (by SCOTUS decision) to saying I need a license to speak freely. IOW, you've got a clear-cut conflict here.
That's not a problem if you take yesterday's victory for what it was. Push the extreme and demand more and you'll open the door to fsck that all up.

Criminals dont give a flying fuck if you 'let' them or not. Guns in schools prevents massacres just like anywhere else. And yes I have four children. Nice appeal to emotion. Wait until the muzzies pull a Beslan here and behead all males rape and torture the female children for a week and see you change your tune. See I can play too.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: ElMonoDelMar

Originally posted by: Craig234
Are you saying that rocket launchers and nuclear weapons aren't military-grade weaponry?

If one purpose of the 2nd amendment is for the public to be able to battle a corrupt government, then shoudln't they need far more advanced weaponry like those rocket launchers? They can hardly fight our modern military with handguns, and so the second amendment is not working.

Scalia wrote that the purpose of the 2nd is for self-defense from criminals and from the oppressive government. He also wrote that SBS's, nukes and bazookas aren't common among the people for self-defense (as handguns, rifles and shotguns are).

So? You just said one of the purposes is protection from the oppresive government. To serve that purpose, the people need weapons powerful enough to defend against our modern military. Whether or not the public has handguns has no effect on whether they can defend themselves against the military, if they can't have the more powerful weapons like rocket launchers. What does what's common have to do with it?

So, is the amendment there for the public to have that defense or isn't it?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: ElMonoDelMar

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: ElMonoDelMar
-snip-
(Not that there is a right to grow pot, but you get the idea.)

You're a Dem, thus I presume you consider yourself a liberal.

I'm a conservative, and I think there IS a right to grow pot in your house.

It's a strange world.

Fern

My ideals are closer to libertarian thinking and that's what I would probably consider myself now. I said I'm a Dem because I'm actually still registered as such. My point still stands as I still hold a lot of more liberal viewpoints on most social issues.

Either way, I still don't see how anyone has a RIGHT to grow pot. Aren't most, if not all, of our natural and legal rights listed in the Constitution? Unless you're saying that having the right to liberty gives you the right to grow pot? That seems like a stretch to me.

I'll be much shorter than Craig234 in my explanation.

Shorter, but not short enough.

 

[ElMonoDelMar]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: ElMonoDelMar

Originally posted by: Craig234
Are you saying that rocket launchers and nuclear weapons aren't military-grade weaponry?

If one purpose of the 2nd amendment is for the public to be able to battle a corrupt government, then shoudln't they need far more advanced weaponry like those rocket launchers? They can hardly fight our modern military with handguns, and so the second amendment is not working.

Scalia wrote that the purpose of the 2nd is for self-defense from criminals and from the oppressive government. He also wrote that SBS's, nukes and bazookas aren't common among the people for self-defense (as handguns, rifles and shotguns are).

So? You just said one of the purposes is protection from the oppresive government. To serve that purpose, the people need weapons powerful enough to defend against our modern military. Whether or not the public has handguns has no effect on whether they can defend themselves against the military, if they can't have the more powerful weapons like rocket launchers. What does what's common have to do with it?

So, is the amendment there for the public to have that defense or isn't it?

The amendment was written so that a militia could be formed to overthrow an opressive government using commonly available weapons that citizens would already have in possession.

As I said earlier:

Upon further reading, the court was saying that militias were formed by common citizens bringing with them common arms that they would have used for hunting or self-defense.

 

[Vic]

The 2nd amendment was written because the individual states wanted to be able to control the federal govt. Period.

Everything else is just commentary about the practical impossibility (and inherent dangers) of disarming the populace anyway.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Zebo
Criminals dont give a flying fuck if you 'let' them or not. Guns in schools prevents massacres just like anywhere else. And yes I have four children. Nice appeal to emotion. Wait until the muzzies pull a Beslan here and behead all males rape and torture the female children for a week and see you change your tune. See I can play too.

Like your entire post here isn't an appeal to emotion? Wow.

And just what is a 'criminal' anyway? Are you some kind of precog or something?

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: Vic
The 2nd amendment was written because the individual states wanted to be able to control the federal govt. Period.

Everything else is just commentary about the practical impossibility (and inherent dangers) of disarming the populace anyway.

Wow, Vic, those are two of the smartest, most concise and dead on sentences regarding this topic that I've ever read, anywhere. :thumbsup:

 

[GenHoth]

Originally posted by: Craig234

So? You just said one of the purposes is protection from the oppresive government. To serve that purpose, the people need weapons powerful enough to defend against our modern military. Whether or not the public has handguns has no effect on whether they can defend themselves against the military, if they can't have the more powerful weapons like rocket launchers. What does what's common have to do with it?

So, is the amendment there for the public to have that defense or isn't it?

Does this mean that you will support the public right to rocket launcers then craig? Because that would be sweet!

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: Vic
The 2nd amendment was written because the individual states wanted to be able to control the federal govt. Period.

Everything else is just commentary about the practical impossibility (and inherent dangers) of disarming the populace anyway.

Wow, Vic, those are two of the smartest, most concise and dead on sentences regarding this topic that I've ever read, anywhere. :thumbsup:

As much as I can see a very cynical person believing the first sentence of Vic's post, the cultural norms of the time period suggest that it's an oversimplification or a single portion of the motivation.

At the time the Constitution of the United States of America (and the associated Bill of Rights) was drafted, the prevailing philosophy on this continent was that a country should not maintain a standing army. This necessitated a populace with access to military-grade weaponry and would have been a consideration independent of any "state vs federal" considerations. If this weren't a consideration, then the state governments formed around this same time would not have protection of individuals' right to keep and bear arms enshrined within their own constitutions. In fact, many state constitutions specifically mention the right as being to the defense of self, not just in defense of the state.

The ability of the general populace to rise up against an unjust government was another consideration, and that consideration occurred independent of whether that government was a state or a federal government. If the chief purpose for the amendment was to allow the states power over the federal government, then it is inconsistent that state constitutions specify that the right applies to personal defense as well. Yes, the 2nd Amendment was intended to facilitate a check against federal power. But it was also intended to facilitate a check against state powers as well.

I agree wholeheartedly with Vic's second sentence, though I might specify that the "inherent danger" of disarming the populace does not rest in danger to the government attempting to disarm the public, but rather in the danger faced by an unarmed populace.

ZV