+- 6.5 Grendel Forum (https://65grendel.com)
+-- Forum: 6.5 GRENDEL FORUM NEWS (https://65grendel.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=5)
+--- Forum: General Discussion (https://65grendel.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=26)
+--- Thread: "Why do you need an AR15?" (/showthread.php?tid=15447)
"Why do you need an AR15?" - stanc - 03-03-2018
grayfox Wrote:My right to keep and bear a militia-style, military style, arm that I would as an ordinary citizen, bring to battle when called upon by the State against its enemies...If called upon by the State to do battle against its enemies, it is extremely unlikely you will be allowed to bring your own "militia-style, military style" arm.
The State will issue you what weapon(s) it deems appropriate.
grayfox Wrote:...is a right straight from God...Really? Please cite any document verifiably written by God, which states that you have such a right.
"Why do you need an AR15?" - biodsl - 03-03-2018
biodsl Wrote:We don't know who fired the first shot at Lexington. Let's assume it was a colonist...Was it moral?
I'm waiting, stanc.
"Why do you need an AR15?" - stanc - 03-03-2018
NugginFutz Wrote:It is further noteworthy that Madison, along with the other authors of the Bill of Rights...What other authors? http://www.billofrightsinstitute.org/founding-documents/bill-of-rights/
"Why do you need an AR15?" - stanc - 03-03-2018
biodsl Wrote:Oh, you actually wanted an answer? I took it to be a rhetorical question. My bad.biodsl Wrote:We don't know who fired the first shot at Lexington. Let's assume it was a colonist. Was it legal? Was it moral?I'm waiting, stanc.
Was it legal? Not unless it was legal to shoot at soldiers, which is rather unlikely.
Was it moral? Morality is subjective, so it would depend upon one's moral values.
"Why do you need an AR15?" - BjornF16 - 03-03-2018
stanc Wrote:Really? Please cite any document verifiably written by God, which states that you have such a right.
Not written by God, but the Founders wrote and the Supreme Court have affirmed that some rights pre-exist the Constitution and were endowed by our Creator...which is close enough to what Grayfox was saying.
"Why do you need an AR15?" - JASmith - 03-03-2018
stanc Wrote:...The idea that you need a gun to fight tyranny -- which you agree is remote and improbable -- makes you sound paranoid, and quite probably unstable, the type of person whom even most gun owners say should be prevented from having firearms...When will we hear constructive suggestions?
"Why do you need an AR15?" - BjornF16 - 03-03-2018
stanc Wrote:Only one person created the Second Amendment. http://www.billofrightsinstitute.org/founding-documents/bill-of-rights/
From your source, emphasis added:
Quote:The first 10 amendments to the Constitution make up the Bill of Rights. Written by James Madison in response to calls from several states for greater constitutional protection for individual liberties, the Bill of Rights lists specific prohibitions on governmental power. The Virginia Declaration of Rights, written by George Mason, strongly influenced Madison.
So it wasn't just thought up/created by one man as you infer. Without the Bill of Rights, there would have been no Constitution.
Some of the many Patriots who advocated for the RKBA were: Samuel Adams, Patrick Henry, George Mason, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, John Adams...the list goes on.
Try reading: The Founders Second Amendment: Origins of the Right to Bear Arms by Stephen P. Halbrook
"Why do you need an AR15?" - grayfox - 03-03-2018
IIRC, "...we hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, among which are..."
The Declaration of Independence. This, as stated, was under that political theory (from Edmund Burke etc if I recall correctly) in direct opposition to the "Divine Right of Kings"... which was most directly embodied in the colonists' time as George III, the Declaration proclaimed that natural rights flowed from God to men, not from God to the King, then to the people if the King wanted to allow that far. We do not get our rights from the King. Nor from the federal govt.
What we might or might not do today, or from which or wherever we might get our arms, under such a threat to the State (ie, wherein the free State is distinguished from the central government), does not diminish what the framers wrote. I think the Federalist papers and Supreme Court decisions (as posted elsewhere by Bjorn: http://www.65grendel.com/forum/showthread.php?16286-SCOTUS-decision-references-on-2A) et al express what is intended in the 2A. And that works for me.
I don't see any problems with that position... I think I am free to hold and to express it. And I also think that most of us on here (myself included) whole-heartedly support and defend the 2A along with the rest of the Constitution, so let's major on that and maybe allow for some minor differences if need be, shall we?
"Why do you need an AR15?" - stanc - 03-03-2018
JASmith Wrote:When will we hear constructive suggestions?:confused: I just gave some.
"Why do you need an AR15?" - NugginFutz - 03-03-2018
stanc Wrote:What other authors? http://www.billofrightsinstitute.org/founding-documents/bill-of-rights/
Stan,
You disappoint me. The source you cite is only one of several available.
Try this one:
Quote:Article Details:
8 Things You Should Know About the Bill of Rights
Year Published
2015
URL
http://www.history.com/news/history-lists/8-things-you-should-know-about-the-bill-of-rights
Access Date
March 03, 2018
Quote:...
While drafting the Bill of Rights, James Madison drew heavily on the Virginia Declaration of Rights, written by George Mason and ratified shortly before the Constitution of Virginia in June 1776. Considered the first constitutional protection of individual rights, it also provided a blueprint for the U.S. Declaration of Independence and France’s Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen....
And this one...
Quote:SEARCH LAWS
WHO WROTE THE BILL OF RIGHTS?
URL
https://constitution.laws.com/who-wrote-the-bill-of-rights
Quote:Who Wrote the Bill of Rights?
When posed with the question ‘Who Wrote the Bill of Rights?’ the answer may prove to be fairly ambiguous in its delivery; although historians vary with regard to their respective responses to this question, George Mason and James Madison are considered to be amongst the 2 primary candidates with regard to the authorship of the Bill of Rights.
James Madison: Who Wrote the Bill of Rights?
James Madison – alongside of George Mason – is credited with both the creation, as well as the conception of the Bill of Rights; as a result of his notice of the absence of a Constitutional Clause providing a system for both the amendment and adjustment of the original text, a clause was subsequently created rectifying these concerns – the actions of James Madison resulted in the proposal of the Bill of Rights in 1789, as well as its subsequent ratification in 1791.
George Mason: Who Wrote the Bill of Rights?
George Mason was a delegate from the state of Virginia, who is credited alongside James Madison with the passing – and subsequent creation – of the Bill of Rights; Mason is noted for his refusal to sign the Constitution. George Mason considered the fact that the Constitution lacked a clause that allowed for the passing of amendments, the addition of this clause would become the Bill of Rights.
Further reading within the same site reveals the following legal analysis of the 2nd Amendment (emphasis mine):
Quote:2nd Amendment
Date Proposed: September, 25th 1789
Date Ratified: December 15th, 1791
Contents of the Amendment: The right to bear arms in a lawful manner with regard to self-protection; firearms covered under the 2nd Amendment do not address service within the Militia.
Madison, himself, offered insight into what he originally intended Article 2 to mean when he spoke to the First Congress and introduced the Bill of Rights. There, he states the following:
Quote:"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."
This initial draft clearly shows the two concepts of individual rights to bear arms and state militias receiving separate and independent attention.
The Federalist Papers lend further insight into the minds of the people, during that time. Of particular noteworthiness is Federalist Paper 46, written by James Madison, which offer a more detailed look into the views regarding the arming of the citizens of a country which had just won its liberty from oppressive rule.
Within 46, it becomes apparent that Madison was concerned with the Federal Government becoming too much like the English Monarchy it had just replaced. In it, he calculates what he sees as the size of a Federal Army needed to protect the country from foreign aggressors, and still remaining small enough (30,000 soldiers) so as not to threaten the security of the individual states. In order to protect the states from being overpowered by the Federal Government, the states were to be allowed a combined militia of 500,000 people.
The theme that the people need to safeguard themselves from an oppressive government runs through these documents, repeatedly.
Stan, I am genuinely surprised to see you have taken the Devil's Advocacy to the level you have. Have you really become that jaded?
"Why do you need an AR15?" - stanc - 03-04-2018
BjornF16 Wrote:"Calls" for greater protection do not equate to being co-author/creator. Madison alone wrote the Bill of Rights, although he clearly was strongly influenced by Mason.stanc Wrote:Only one person created the Second Amendment. http://www.billofrightsinstitute.org...ill-of-rights/From your source, emphasis added:
Quote:The first 10 amendments to the Constitution make up the Bill of Rights. Written by James Madison in response to calls from several states for greater constitutional protection for individual liberties, the Bill of Rights lists specific prohibitions on governmental power. The Virginia Declaration of Rights, written by George Mason, strongly influenced Madison.So it wasn't just thought up/created by one man as you infer.
From the Virginia Declaration of Rights:
Quote:...a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state...Note that, like Madison did with the Second Amendment, Mason only addressed collective defense.
"Why do you need an AR15?" - montana - 03-04-2018
Onl Wrote:one person[/b] created the Second Amendment. http://www.billofrightsinstitute.org/founding-documents/bill-of-rights/
The first 10 amendments to the Constitution make up the Bill of Rights. Written by James Madison in response to calls from several states for greater constitutional protection for individual liberties, the Bill of Rights lists specific prohibitions on governmental power. The Virginia Declaration of Rights, written by George Mason, strongly influenced Madison.
I think you need to re-read your own example. written in response and strongly influenced by George Mason. The Second Amendment was written with the concern and input and approval by many of the people at that time whom I have quoted and you disregard. James Madison gave full credit to George Mason for his influence and importance of the Second Amendment. http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/quotes/arms.html
"[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
--James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 46
The Declaration of Independence for example:
Almost everyone knows that Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence. However, did you know that, like most people who write something, he wrote at least one rough draft? Jefferson heavily edited his first draft before he prepared a clean, or "fair," copy that became the basis of the "original rough draught." The other representatives from the 13 colonies selected Jefferson to write the Declaration because they all agreed he was the best writer to represent all of their beliefs, not Jefferson's alone. To disreguard the others thoughts and beliefs for only Jefferson's is ridiculous.
"Why do you need an AR15?" - stanc - 03-04-2018
NugginFutz Wrote:Stan, You disappoint me. The source you cite is only one of several available.:confused: That confirms what I previously wrote: Madison drafted (wrote/authored/created) the Bill of Rights, and was strongly influenced by Mason.
Try this one:
Quote:While drafting the Bill of Rights, James Madison drew heavily on the Virginia Declaration of Rights, written by George Mason...
NugginFutz Wrote:Further reading within the same site reveals the following legal analysis of the 2nd Amendment (emphasis mine)::confused: The 2nd Amendment does not say anything about individual self defense. It only addresses collective defense (i.e., defense of the state).
Quote:The right to bear arms in a lawful manner with regard to self-protection; firearms covered under the 2nd Amendment do not address service within the Militia.
NugginFutz Wrote:Madison, himself, offered insight into what he originally intended Article 2 to mean when he spoke to the First Congress and introduced the Bill of Rights. There, he states the following:No. It shows that in order for a "well armed and well regulated militia" to have its individual members bring their own weapons with them when reporting for duty, they must be allowed to own and carry said weapons.
Quote:The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.This initial draft clearly shows the two concepts of individual rights to bear arms and state militias receiving separate and independent attention.
And even if the concepts had received "separate and independent attention" in that initial draft, since it was not adopted, it doesn't matter. What counts is the final draft, and it links the two aspects.
NugginFutz Wrote:The Federalist Papers lend further insight into the minds of the people, during that time. Of particular noteworthiness is Federalist Paper 46, written by James Madison, which offer a more detailed look into the views regarding the arming of the citizens of a country which had just won its liberty from oppressive rule.And yet the idea that the people should have arms for the purpose of overthrowing the government is conspicuously absent from both the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Within 46, it becomes apparent that Madison was concerned with the Federal Government becoming too much like the English Monarchy it had just replaced. In it, he calculates what he sees as the size of a Federal Army needed to protect the country from foreign aggressors, and still remaining small enough (30,000 soldiers) so as not to threaten the security of the individual states. In order to protect the states from being overpowered by the Federal Government, the states were to be allowed a combined militia of 500,000 people.
The theme that the people need to safeguard themselves from an oppressive government runs through these documents, repeatedly.
"Why do you need an AR15?" - montana - 03-04-2018
"While none of the Founders liked the idea of a standing army, the majority (Madison strongly included) believed it to be necessary. The Second Amendment was not a response to Anti-federalist criticism of the standing army. All the Bill of Rights were added because of a desire to disarm what Madison and the other Federalists saw as an Anti-federalist quibble, a strawman objection to the lack of a Bill of Rights which was intended to excite the fear and passion of the masses but which statesmen on both sides viewed as negligible. Madison just wrote up a set of principles ― of truisms ― in which everybody believed, and the Congress duly passed it as the Bill of Rights. Two of these truisms that got cobbled into one article were: that there is a natural right to be armed; and that militias are a good thing.
"Why do you need an AR15?" - stanc - 03-04-2018
montana Wrote:The first 10 amendments to the Constitution make up the Bill of Rights. Written by James Madison in response to calls from several states for greater constitutional protection for individual liberties, the Bill of Rights lists specific prohibitions on governmental power. The Virginia Declaration of Rights, written by George Mason, strongly influenced Madison.Calls for greater protection do not make the callers co-authors. Being influenced by another's writings does not make that other person a co-author.
I think you need to re-read your own example. written in response and strongly influenced by George Mason. The Second Amendment was written with the concern and input and approval by many of the people at that time whom I have quoted and you disregard. James Madison gave full credit to George Mason for his influence and importance of the Second Amendment.
"Why do you need an AR15?" - montana - 03-04-2018
British confiscation of arms focused the attention of our Founding Fathers on the threats posed by a standing army quartered among the people, and the necessity of having an armed citizenry to prevent the tyranny of such an occupying force.
No doubt inspired by the Boston arms confiscations, George Mason, the subsequent co-author of the Second Amendment, wrote in his Fairfax County Militia Plan:
... A well-regulated Militia, composed of the Gentlemen, Freeholders, and other Freemen was necessary to protect our ancient laws and liberty from the standing army ... And we do each of us, for ourselves respectively, promise and engage to keep a good Fire-lock in proper order & to furnish Ourselves as soon as possible with, & always keep by us, one Pound of Gunpowder, four Pounds of Lead, one Dozen Gun Flints, and a pair of Bullet Moulds, with a Cartouch Box, or powder horn, and Bag for Balls.
Mason's sentiments were echoed by Samuel Adams who admonished the uneasy colonists that:
... It is always dangerous to the liberties of the people to have an army stationed among them, over which they have no control ... The Militia is composed of free Citizens. There is therefore no Danger of their making use of their power to the destruction of their own Rights, or suffering others to invade them.
In this passage, Samuel Adams further clarified Mason's thinking on the power of government in respect to the armed citizen: rights are sacred when the beneficiaries of those rights are entrusted with their safekeeping, and have the means to do so.
Our Founding Fathers clearly understood that, once armed, Americans would defend their freedoms to the last breath. Nowhere was this notion more evident than in Patrick Henry's "Give me liberty, or give me death" speech. The context of that oration – the importance of an armed population – has unfortunately been lost in today's "politically correct" anti-gun climate. Yet, Henry's words are there to defend the embattled Second Amendment. When speaking of revolution, Henry proclaimed:
They tell us … that we are weak--unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? ... Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? ... Three million people, armed in the holy cause of liberty ... are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against US.
Patrick Henry not only issued this warning, he acted upon it. Following the British attempt to seize arms and ammunition in Boston, and the subsequent historic skirmish at Lexington, the British seized gunpowder at Williamsburg, Virginia. The Hanover Independent Militia, led by Patrick Henry, was unable to retake the powder, but they forced the British to pay restitution. At this point, the British denial of the colonists' right to keep and bear arms became the driving force behind the armed resistance.
This fundamental right--the importance of an American's ability to defend his liberties--became the principal argument of our Founding Fathers for independence. Following the "shot heard round the world" at Lexington, Thomas Jefferson penned these words in the Virginia Constitution of 1776: "... No free man shall be debarred the use of arms within his own land."
Nowhere are Jefferson's thoughts about the rights and powers of the citizenry more explicit than in the Declaration of Independence, which he had such a hand in writing: "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it."
Certainly Jefferson, and his co-authors of the Declaration, preferred peaceful changes in government. But those four words – "the Right of the People" – state in plain language that the people have the right, must have the right, to take whatever measures necessary, including force, to abolish oppressive government.
Jefferson was not alone in sounding the call to arms. Henry, Adams, Washington all called upon the colonists to arm themselves. And the call was issued to all Americans, not only landowners and freemen. Thomas Paine, renowned for his treatise, Common Sense, urged religious pacifists to take up arms in his pamphlet Thoughts on Defensive War:
... The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world not destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside ... Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them ... the weak will become a prey to the strong.
Our Founding Fathers wasted no time in attributing this victory to the right of the people to keep and bear arms. James Madison, the father of the Second Amendment, congratulated his countrymen:
Americans [have] the right and advantage of being armed – unlike citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
Indeed, it was President George Washington who urged the first Congress to pass an act enrolling the entire adult male citizenry in a general militia. The father of our country further urged that "A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined."
Washington's sentiments about the militia, and who should be included in the militia in the infant United States, were echoed by George Mason in the debate on the ratification of the Constitution before the Virginia Assembly: "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
"Except for a few public officials." With these six words, George Mason made explicit his deep-set belief that the individual armed citizen was the key to protection against government excesses and in defense of freedom.
James Madison expanded on this point in The Federalist Papers, number 46, where he downplayed the threat of seizure of authority by a federal army, because such a move would be opposed by "a militia amounting to half a million men."
In 1790, since the population of the United States was about 800,000, Madison wasn't referring to state reserves. By militia, Madison obviously meant every able-bodied man capable of bearing arms. This, undoubtedly, was also the meaning of "militia" when the Second Amendment was written.
Across the nation, Federalists echoed our Founding Fathers' insistence that the right to keep and bear arms become part of the Constitution. In a pamphlet advocating Pennsylvania's ratification of the Constitution, patriot and statesman Noah Webster declared:
Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.
Not only did our Founding Fathers focus their debate on the right of the people to keep and bear arms, they devoted considerable energy to issuing a warning to future generations that the battle to defend these freedoms will take precedence over all other work.
It was Patrick Henry at the Virginia convention on the ratification of the Constitution who articulated the necessity of guarding the rights of an armed citizenry.
Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are mined.
And James Madison, in the National Gazette, January 19, 1792:
Liberty and order will never be perfectly safe until a trespass on the Constitutional provisions for either, shall be felt with the same keenness that resents an invasion of the dearest rights.
The anti-gunners would do well to pay heed to the words of Benjamin Franklin:
They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty not safety.
Unfortunately, a large part of this tragedy-the wanton disregard of our essential liberties-can be laid at the feet of Americans who have not taken action to protect their freedoms. To quote C.S. Lewis: "We laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst."
Every American must leap to the defense of his or her liberties. We must answer, word for word, the vicious attacks that pour out from the TV screen and newspaper pages around the country. We must attend town meetings in protest and we must hold our elected officials accountable. We must not allow them to misinterpret our Founding Fathers’ directives. Then, and only then, will freedom be safe for future generations.
In the words of Dwight D. Eisenhower, "Freedom has its life in the hearts, the actions, the spirit of men and so it must be daily earned and refreshed-else like a flower cut from its lifegiving roots, it will wither and die."
"Why do you need an AR15?" - bj139 - 03-04-2018
stanc Wrote:If called upon by the State to do battle against its enemies, it is extremely unlikely you will be allowed to bring your own "militia-style, military style" arm.
The State will issue you what weapon(s) it deems appropriate.
Isn't the whole point of the 2nd Amendment, if the state is the enemy, as it was in 1776, you MUST bring your own weapon.
"Why do you need an AR15?" - montana - 03-04-2018
"[Today] both sides in the modern Second Amendment debate recognize that Madison proposed, and the Federalist First Congress passed, the Bill of Rights in response to Anti-federalist criticism of the Constitution. Unlike the individual right view [the view of those who believe the Second Amendment protects an "individual" right to keep and bear arms], however, the states’ right view presupposes the Amendment’s hostility to parts of the Constitution to which the Anti-federalists were deeply opposed. The Anti-federalists had opposed ratification of the Constitution on two very different kinds of grounds. One involved deep suspicion about specific provisions, particularly those allowing a standing army and providing for federal supervision of the militia. Entirely independent of those specifics, the Anti-federalists, and many other Americans, were critical of the failure to append to the Constitution a charter of basic human rights that the federal government could not infringe under any circumstances.
"The individual right view sees the Second Amendment, and the Bill of Rights in general, as responding to this second kind of criticism. During the ratification debate, the Federalists vehemently denied that the federal government would have the power to infringe freedom of expression, religion, and other basic rights – expressly including the right to arms. In this context, Madison secured ratification by his commitment to support the addition by amendment of a charter that would guarantee basic rights. But that commitment extended only to safeguarding the fundamental rights that all agreed should never be infringed. It did not involve conceding any issue on which the Federalists and Anti-federalists disagreed, i.e., the latters’ opposition to specific provisions of the Constitution. Indeed, a few days after their submission, Madison said that he had ‘deliberately proposed amendments that would not detract from federal powers, among them a right for the citizenry to be armed.’
"The Second Amendment, then, was a response to the perceived lack of individual rights guarantees, not, as states' right proponents contend, a reaction to the standing army and militia control provisions of [the original Constitution]. The latter source of Anti-federalist wrath was simply not addressed by the Second Amendment. Nothing on the face of the Amendment deals with [those] concerns; certainly Madison did not see it as changing those portions of the Constitution. The Anti-federalists were not placated by the Amendment; when the proposed Bill of Rights reached the Senate, they unsuccessfully attempted to amend or repeal the offending clauses of [the original Constitution]."
"Why do you need an AR15?" - stanc - 03-04-2018
montana Wrote:Madison just wrote up a set of principles ― of truisms ― in which everybody believed, and the Congress duly passed it as the Bill of Rights. Two of these truisms that got cobbled into one article were: that there is a natural right to be armed; and that militias are a good thing.Aside from the very dubious claim that said principles are "truisms," the two principles noted were put together into the same amendment because:
1. For militias to require individual members to have their own weapons, the individual members must be able to lawfully possess and carry their personal weapons.
2. The 2nd Amendment was clearly based on the Virginia version (written by Mason), which only addressed keeping and bearing arms for collective defense of the state, not self defense of the individual.
Note the significant difference between the RKBA of Vermont versus Virginia:
Virginia (1776) "...a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state..."
Vermont (1777) "...the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State..."
Like the 2nd Amendment, the Virginia RKBA is directly linked to arming the militia, for defense of the state, whereas Vermont's RKBA is independent of arming the militia.
"Why do you need an AR15?" - montana - 03-04-2018
It is revealing that in the thousands of pages of proceedings that were published in the course of the debates that took place in the state and federal legislatures before the drafting of the bill of rights and throughout the ratification period, little mention is made of the individual right to keep and bear arms. This indicates, I think it is fair to say, that whatever their disagreements about the inclusion of a bill of rights in the Constitution, the Federalists and Anti-federalists were unanimous in their support of an individual right to keep and bear arms. They were also unanimous in assuming that "the right of the people to keep…arms" included the individual right to keep ordinary personal arms for armed self- and community-defense, especially against burglars, robbers, and rapists.
This lack of understanding of the nature of the controversy between the Federalists and the Anti-federalists is one of the two principal reasons, I believe, why the proponents of gun control have reached the erroneous conclusion that the Second Amendment guarantees only a "collective right" or "states' right" to keep and bear arms.
Whatever the merits of the Anti-federalists' cause, we know now that the Federalists persevered in the controversy and the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution. When the first U.S. Congress convened on March 4, 1789, 103 proposed amendments had been submitted by the states to be considered for inclusion in a bill of rights. Congress reduced that number to twelve, and these were sent back to the states for ratification. Two amendments failed to be ratified, and the remaining ten, now called the Bill of Rights, were ratified on December 15, 1791.