@One Man Clan,
What I said is if one accepts the construction put forward by Jefferson, one would have to look at the second amendment as well in that light.
'The right of the people to keep and bear arms' is a dependent sentence.
'A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms...'
''A well-regulated militia... the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.'
'...being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.'
'A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State... shall not be infringed.'
The second phrase describes the first, so the last one is describing the first, not the third.
That would be using Jefferson's logic about which the thread was started.
The third phrase is dependent on the idea of a militia.
Either one has to accept the idea of the construction or not.
Of course, it is true that the spirit is what should be applied, not strict wording, as is applicable.
I would argue that the amendment represents the right to defend oneself, but I wouldn't go so far to say, as some seem to do, that there shouldn't be any regulations.
But I was arguing about the dependency of phrases and their meanings in context to the argument against supporting the general welfare.
I greatly admire Jefferson, and I am also suspicious of some of Hamilton's ideas, but I do question the extreme position taken here. Jefferson was very much for education, so I wonder how he reconciled this with what he says in regard to these limitations. Admittedly, his efforts were often thwarted~ the discussion about education being put in the Constitution narrowly failed to do so.
I understand his criticism, yet it would have to be applied whole~heartedly, and in whole, or it isn't a very good legal argument.
The argument about the right to bear arms is related, and it also stems out.
There are other statements that qualify the issue. Jefferson appears to believe in the personal ownership of guns as he believes that the People contain the power, and the right of revolution, while Washington seems to be more in line with the idea of a militia.
I, for one, think that Jefferson was right regarding the power of the People, which is really the individual's right to buck tyranny, but I qualify it by the type of government the United States has. That is a democratic, representative, constitutional republic. Pure democracy is mob rule, and I don't think Jefferson aspired to that, seeing, for one, that he had different ideas on religion, and the sense of a spiritual conscience. He respected the right of the minority and the individual and so he couldn't have believed in simple majority rule.
I do believe that encompassed in the second amendment is the idea of duty to country, as espoused by Washington. So, while there is the idea of personal protection, the right to overthrow the government, if it has lost its way, there is also the duty to country, and all which really is not truly allegiance to self or country, yet to principles.
