Today on "WallBuilders Live," David Barton doubled down on his assertion that there are literally no limits on the Second Amendment, declaring that individuals not only have an inalienable right to possess guns, but also tanks, rocket launchers, fighter jets, and anything else they can get their hands on; including, presumably, even nuclear bombs:
The problem I have with this (and speaking from a "gun rights supporter" standpoint) is that the ability to keep and bear
tanks, rocket launchers, fighter jets, and any other weapon of open / indiscriminate warfare they can get their hands on; including, presumably, even nuclear bombs can not be declared "inalienable" because the power to acquire, maintain and deploy HAS been conferred to the federal government through the power to make war and "provide for" the armed forces.
We the People can not clam as a "right" those interests that we have surrendered, and as far as those weapons in italics above go, the argument can be made that federal preemption and supremacy would be claimed to support laws restricting the citizen ownership of those weapons and that those laws would be constitutionally sustained if challenged (as violative of the 2nd Amendment). . .
The belief of the Second Amendment was you as a citizen have a right to defend yourself whether it be against a thug, an aggressor, a crook, or against your government.
Absolutely true.
Now this is where a lot of liberals go through the roof; are you saying that you think individual citizens have a right to own a machine gun?
I agree with Scalia that NFA-34 is probably unconstitutional but the Catch-22 that Scalia notes is that since full-auto has been restricted for 70+ years and counting, machine guns are not "in common use" and thus the bar is raised to argue that they are protected.
Yeah. And an Abrams Tank, and a bazooka, and a F-16 because you've got a right to defend yourself with the same size of weapons that might be brought against you ...
And there is the crux of the issue, government attacking the people and the people's ability to fight back . . .
The 2nd Amendment first intends to preserve the general militia concept to ensure that the states and the feds can have at their disposal a large force of civic minded citizens (considered to be 20%-25% of the total population) ready at a moment's notice to muster with an arm supplied by themselves to aid the civil authority in time of need.
That action of organizing, training and deploying the citizens as militia is a function belonging to legitimate government and along with the citizen's duty to serve the government when called, assumes that the government is operating within the confines of the Constitution and respecting the principles of its establishment.
When government
exceeds the powers granted to it and harms rights and is violating the principles of its establishment, it is the citizen's original right to rescind their consent to be governed and reclaim the powers granted through the Constitution and force the government to relinquish those powers.
At that point the illegitimate government can no longer claim the preemption and supremacy authority that protects it and the people would then posses the sole authority to possess and use
tanks, rocket launchers, fighter jets, and any other weapon of open / indiscriminate warfare they can get their hands on; including, presumably, even nuclear bombs in defense against that illegitimate government.
Barton's assignment of the 2nd Amendment being the legal claim of the "right" to posses and use those weapons is misapplied and shortsighted.
If it comes down to the government using the weapons of war against the people and the citizens using the weapons of war against the government, the issue of "constitutional rights" is moot as there is no expectation of citing government authority under the Constitution to protect said rights. In the grand scheme of things, the 2nd entails the complete de-powering and throwing off of illegitimate government and the reclamation of
ALL powers once surrendered, not just the claim to own a particular arm.
.