[ QUOTE ]
"Would you agree that Alexander Hamilton, a man that signed the original constitution, believes it is (or at least should be) a natural and individual right?"
No. I've re-read Federalist 28 and it concerns itself with anti-federalists' concerns over a national military and says absolutely nothing about individual rights to have guns for personal usage.
[/ QUOTE ]
Then would you mind telling me what Hamilton meant when he said "original right of self-defense"? What is an "original" right?
[ QUOTE ]
"Madison believes American gun laws are far more relaxed. Would you disagree or agree with this simple statement?"
I think so, yes.
[/ QUOTE ]
Finally, something we agree on. I've read a lot of books on the history of firearms and gun control. I'd have to go book digging to be 100% confident but I'm rather confident right now that the good citizens of UK, Sweden, Finland, Australia, New Zealand, Germany and likely 4 other European countries enjoyed the rights of civilian ownership of firearms with little or even in some cases no restrictions when the constitution was signed. If I go through the law books and document this it would be a thorn in the side of the collective right advocates. If other countries had individual rights then a collective right reading of Madison's statement would surely be falsified.
[ QUOTE ]
"Also regarding Madison's statement on RKBA . . ."
I've read this a few times, without it sinking in; sorry to be dense, don't understand your point in this section.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'll try to break this down:
*Madison called the aid of government an "additional" meaning separate and supporting advantage to RKBA. Just because you have one does not mean the other is automatically required. It only increases the odds of success.
*This "additional" and supporting argument is something I've used to support the notion of the variability utility of an individual RKBA. I find it odd that one would use an argument I find supportive as unsupportive.
*Nowhere in Madison's statement does he say that it's unlikely that a militia without government aid is unlikely to trump tyranny. He merely says it is uncertain but with local government aid it is "greatest assurance" to succeed.
*The notion that average civilians cannot overthrow an army is one that is commonly used against RKBA. It is used back then and it is used now. In my view, Madison was simply addressing this anti-RKBA argument.
[ QUOTE ]
But with the 2nd amendment, the individual rights people say that's what the amendment was intended to protect. There is a lot of evidence that it was not. So their position cannot be justified on an originalist interpretation.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well, you can keep saying that the pro-RKBA position cannot be justified and we can engage in an Dr. Goebbels
argumentum ad nausium style debate but that would be a waste of time. You consider some of the very arguments I use to defend the 2A, which are also used by Madison, as evidence that the 2A is not individual. I certainly do not hold an anti-RKBA position so for you to claim that I do hold an anti-RKBA position is silly to me. And that is what you are doing. So maybe we should raise the bar on what "a lot of evidence" means. I have yet to see a founding father quote that seems strongly and obviously worded in the way you think it is. On the other hand I doubt any sane person would argue this is the case with Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, George Mason, Zacharia Johnson and several others.
And it is clear that Alexander Hamilton thought the militia was not under control of either state or federal government expect when "called out"
The militia is a voluntary force not associated or under the control of the States except when called out; [ when called into actual service] a permanent or long standing force would be entirely different in make-up and call. in Federalist Paper No. 28
The President, and government, will only control the militia when a part of them is in the actual service of the federal government, else, they are independent and not under the command of the president or the government. The states would control the militia, only when called out into the service of the state, and then the governor would be commander in chief where enumerated in the respective state constitution. -- Federalist Paper No. 69
http://www.famous-quote.net/alexande...n-quotes.shtml
So if you would mind telling me how voluntary force not controlled by or even "associated" with state or federal government is not an individual right I am all ears. Please inform me how Alexander Hamilton would have considered this anything but an individual right.