The opening clause of the Second Amendment misleads anti-gun… groups about the original intent of the Framers. In many ways, the amendment is contradictory, first establishing a collective need only to qualify that necessity with individual protections of negative liberty. Modern opponents of the Second Amendment refuse to separate the concept of an armed populace from compulsory military service.
If only there were some Constitutional reference we could consult….
Definitely not included in the musical is Hamilton’s explanation of individual gun rights… in Federalist 29. Hamilton leaves no doubt that people are entitled to their weapons because the alternative, compulsory military service, would violate their individual liberties-
“as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it.”
Hamilton links a powerful state, standing army, and overzealous politicians to tyranny… and armed citizens standing together as a defense against these abuses-
“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.”