Washington’s words to the nation: "A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined."



The problem we encounter today is that the constitution written in English of the time interpretation today is likely different. Today we have judges interpreting the constitution and bill of rights in today’s English which differs from old English.

It seems the debate between Federalists and Anti-Federalists were two shared assumptions. The proposed new Constitution gave the federal government almost total legal authority over the army and militia. The federal government should not have any authority at all to disarm the citizenry. They disagreed only about whether an armed populace could adequately deter federal oppression.

The 2nd amendment was easily accepted at the time because of widespread agreement that the federal government should not have the power to infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms.


If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair. The usurpers, clothed with the forms of legal authority, can too often crush the opposition in embryo. The smaller the extent of the territory, the more difficult will it be for the people to form a regular or systematic plan of opposition, and the more easy will it be to defeat their early efforts. Intelligence can be more speedily obtained of their preparations and movements, and the military force in the possession of the usurpers can be more rapidly directed against the part where the opposition has begun. In this situation there must be a peculiar coincidence of circumstances to insure success to the popular resistance.

Paragraph 6 of federalist 28 – Alexander Hamilton

Alexander Hamilton as been used by modern proponents (and historical revisionists) as the flag bearer for an all inclusive top down government because he supported a ‘strong national government’ but it is clear that he harbored two paramount beliefs… The people, untrained and unorganized should be able to take up arms against an overly oppressive government be they national, state or local and that their was clear divisions in power and representation between the states and the national government that required strong state government to counteract the usurpations of the national.

Federalist 28 goes on to talk about the necessity of strong checks and balances both that the national level and between the national authority and state government; state government in concert with its people to reject national usurpation of power and the rights of the people. Of course those who like authority saw opportunity in the 17th amendment to take the US Senate away from the supervision of the states and turn it into another house of representatives that only seem to have one competing interest… their careers.


They can claim all they want but there are plenty of writings by the other founding fathers out there that clarify things.


The unfortunate thing is that most people just as some of the example in the article take ‘quotes’ out of context to make a point not unlike the use of scripture to make totally erroneous points. As I mentioned about, the cast of ‘Hamilton’ on Broadway attempt, as many on the left have tried to do late, to take Hamilton’s ‘strong government’ words and twist the meaning to become ‘all inclusive government’. You are correct that their is more than enough actual writings to prove beyond a doubt the intent of the inclusion of firearms as an individual right but the left will jump on any of these false or out of context quotes people on the right use to further their agenda.


The need for Americans to have arms was obvious with Ruby Ridge and Waco ! We have a Obama weaponized FBI with an agenda !!!