If this be true, you might as well let the federal government come and take all the guns. What better way to prevent rebellion or insurrection?

#2A
nostr:nevent1qqsgpgk39d8nj3ys4f3mawz3vqpmhrcczczpeaetmnz6s5suvcrpn9qpr4mhxue69uhkummnw3ezucnfw33k76twv4ezuum0vd5kzmp0qgsd4nnrkqxy9ehqzlgqm5vs4yeg8psq9l6e0wzpad00j80y788gfygrqsqqqqqp7u42gn 

 That's a perspective I have not heard before.

Of course, it must be mentioned here that the Founders did not exactly intend a standing army, either.  Instead of a professional army, a militia would be responsible for defense.

We've obviously departed a long way from that, and this departure certainly colors more recent discussions on the Second Amendment. 

 The libertarian in me saw from this article that a strong national was not needed to put down rebellions like Shays' Rebellion. George Washington and others overreacted (or more cynically, didn't let a good crisis go to waste):

"Shays’ Rebellion was eventually put down when a group of wealthy merchants in Boston pooled their resources and created their own militia to quell the uprising. "
 https://www.gastongazette.com/story/opinion/columns/2017/02/06/mark-l-hopkins-second-amendment-and-shays-rebellion/22532517007/#:~:text=Shays%E2%80%99%20Rebellion%20was%20eventually%20put%20down%20when%20a%20group%20of%20wealthy%20merchants%20in%20Boston%20pooled%20their%20resources%20and%20created%20their%20own%20militia%20to%20quell%20the%20uprising.

See, the free market and #voluntarism took care of the problem. Government inevitably creates bigger problems than those it was created to solve... 

 Of course, without constitutional protection for the citizens to arm themselves, there are fewer guarantees such locally-organized militias would be possible at all. 

 The right to defend yourself from criminals and from tyrannical government is an unalienable right.

An unalienable right is one that cannot be taken from you, nor even by a 100% majority vote.

The Constitution doesn't grant you the right to keep and bear arms. The 2nd Amendment explicitly reminds the government that it cannot and shall not infringr on the right to self defense against oppression or threat to life or limb. 

 The Second Amendment starts out by referencing "a well-regulated militia." Would an armed uprising by the people constitute "a well-regulated militia"? If not, the argument of the Left seems to be that the Second Amendment does not apply to those wanting to take up arms against the government. The militia is to be well-regulated and organized, with it's leaders appointed by the government, and fighting on behalf of the government. 

 In the context of the 1780s-90s:

Militia is the whole body of free people who could be called up for military service

Well regulated means something closer to well-armed than "subject to lots of regulations"

And, the First War of Secession (in the 1770s) certainly suggests that militias might oppose the government 

 Yes, but they changed all that with the Constitution and the Militia Act. Governors were the comanders-in-chief of state militias and the President over them all (it may not have started out that way but the laws were changed over time to make it that way today). I may be wrong, but I don't think Founders were contemplating independent militias but rather rather those under state government control, and ultimately under federal control. I'd be happy to be shown that's wrong.

I think nostr:nprofile1qqsym07t03wahqjfl8r7hrppuqvlpralklk9mm25pzmpgkgtawx3d9gpr4mhxue69uhkummnw3ezucnfw33k76twv4ezuum0vd5kzmp0qyg8wumn8ghj7mn0wd68ytnddakj7qg4waehxw309ahx7um5wghx77r5wghxgetk9uzy9auh is right on natural law grounds, the natural right to self defense, but I think if you try to argue on Constitutional grounds it's like going to court against the government, when they are a party to the complaint and also the judge (how is that fair or just?). You'll only win if they allow it. 

 I also see from this editorial that things were pretty bad even under the Articles of Confederation government. Granted, the boys in Shay's Rebellion were protesting the Massachusetts state government, however, the existence of Congress gave Washington and others the instrument by which to create the more powerful federal Constitution... 

 Furthermore, Congress instituted a military draft, once the Constitution was adopted, which forced men to take up arms on behalf of the government, perhaps even against their will. A draft is slavery. 

"In the early 1790s, a second major rebellion began in Western Pennsylvania. It was called the Whiskey Rebellion and, again, was a revolt against taxes. Thus, the Second Amendment was written and signed into law in the shadow of these two major citizens’ rebellions.

"The U.S. Congress reacted to this second major rebellion by passing “The Militia Act” which gave teeth to the Second Amendment by requiring all military-age “free adults” to stand for service to “enforce the laws of the Union, thereby insuring “domestic tranquility.” President Washington himself gave orders to form a militia of 13,000 men to put down the Whiskey Rebellion."
 https://www.gastongazette.com/story/opinion/columns/2017/02/06/mark-l-hopkins-second-amendment-and-shays-rebellion/22532517007/#:~:text=The%20U.S.%20Congress,down%20the%20Whiskey%20Rebellion.
 

 Take a look at the text of the Second Amendment. Whose security does it say it is for?
https://image.nostr.build/4ad87a816a648a3dc37ab0a234dafd9f367d16534ce2e7e4948df82e21087ff4.jpg

nostr:nevent1qqsgpgk39d8nj3ys4f3mawz3vqpmhrcczczpeaetmnz6s5suvcrpn9qprpmhxue69uhkummnw3ezuendwsh8w6t69e3xj730qgsd4nnrkqxy9ehqzlgqm5vs4yeg8psq9l6e0wzpad00j80y788gfygrqsqqqqqpnwpqqw 

 And what do you suspect was the purpose in the case where the state was no longer free? And do you think they had all forgotten the Declaration of Independence and the right to throw off a tyrannical govt that no longer served its people? I personally would think that might be fresh in their minds. 

 What are the chances that a concon with the cronie bio below, who spent his entire career leeching from the gangsterment higher-education administration racket, is going to admit that 2A is there to enable doing something that same gangsterment deems illegal - the armed overthrow of the government, exactly the way it was created?
🤔

"
Dr. Mark L. Hopkins writes for More Content Now and Scripps Newspapers. He is past president of colleges and universities in four states and currently serves as executive director of a higher-education consulting service. You will find Hopkins’ latest book, “Journey to Gettysburg,” on Amazon.com. Contact him at presnet@presnet.net.
" 

 It's always good to consider the source of an argument, but it's an ad hominem fallacy to dismiss an argument on that basis. Sure, that might explain WHY he takes the position he does, but it doesn't address his argument itself.

He has been a gangsterment grifter his whole career, as you pointed out, so of course he's going to support the gangsterment. But the Founders had just spent a few years establishing a new gangsterment by the time the Second Amendment was adopted, so how likely is it that they would write something into the Constitution that could be the means of its undoing? Indeed, they made it very difficult to amend the Constitution, especially via a concon (constitutional convention, for the folks in Rio Linda). Once a State is created, it's prime directive is to preserve itself, even if that is against "The People" it was ostensibly created to serve. 

I agree that a concon with Leftists could be a disaster resulting in a far worse gangsterment than we have now. That's why I favor Human Governance 3.0™ 😁

https://open.substack.com/pub/christophercook/p/era-democracy-must-end 

 It's not an ad hominem to dismiss his argument due to conflict of interest: in his lifetime, the Education Industrial Complex is as dependent on absolute power of its source of funds as the Military Industrial one is.

The founders made their constitution rather easy to ignore through "unconstitutional" statutes for which they expressly gave themselves immunity in their constitution, and through judicial activism that began during their lifetime under Marshall.

They began ignoring the constitution through statutes themselves: their Sedition Act for example, confirmed their previous Independence Declaration to have been a criminal conspiracy it was.

It's fundamentally absurd to pretend that "A Nation of Laws", based on the best constitution ever devised could result from an armed criminal conspiracy.

Just that fact, makes the whole discussion of what that gang meant in their " Amendments" pointless.

Their constitution was just a fig leaf to justify continuing the scam with taxing power The Confederation Articles didn't give them.

It was a fraud it's turned out to be from the beginning. If their constitution did actually create a government of expressed, limited powers, no Bill of Rights was necessary at all, much less their 2A. 

 Dismissing his argument because of a conflict of interest still evades tackling what he said on its merits. 

But I essentially agree with the rest of what you wrote. 

 That whole argument about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, is based on the premise that it's turtles all the way down.

He, like its founders, is expanding the argument, because of an interest conflict.

An argument based on false premises, has false merits.