Question

Would you be upset if one of the governmental branches acts outside of its listed Constitutional powers (i.e., it does something which it does not have an explicit grant to do)?  For example, the Congress set up its own special court system or the president makes laws.

Would it upset you even if the action was something you agreed with?

You wonder why I think you are a pack of morons?

It's the Second AMENDMENT, not ARTICLE II--Dipshits!

Article II deals with executive powers, which you would know if you had any idea of what the Constitution actually says.

Oh the irony! Article 2, Section 2: "...The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the MILITIA of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States..."

But, you DON'T have any idea of what the fuck is going on most of the time (pointing out how stupid you people are would be a full time job), which is why you can be duped into an idiotic interpretation of the Second Amendment--you have no fucking idea of what you are talking about.

Even better, the Second Amendment is misquoted instead of "the free state" this says "the state".

Oh, dear: he's a STATIST.

Well, this clown now has a permanent reminder of his stupidity.

Or maybe he likes Obama deep down in his heart...which goes with his latent statist tendencies.

Now, piss off and worry about how much drool is dripping from your mouths.

Quotes of the Day

Courtesy of Andrew Goddard, we have two quotes:

 "Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of nineteen years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right."--Jefferson to Madison in 1789

"The idea that institutions established for the use of the nation cannot be touched nor modified even to make them answer their end because of rights gratuitously supposed in those employed to manage them in trust for the public, may perhaps be a salutary provision against the abuses of a monarch but is most absurd against the nation itself. Yet our lawyers and priests generally inculcate this doctrine and suppose that preceding generations held the earth more freely than we do, had a right to impose laws on us unalterable by ourselves, and that we in like manner can make laws and impose burdens on future generations which they will have no right to alter; in fine, that the earth belongs to the dead and not the living." --Thomas Jefferson to William Plumer, 1816.

Serious ignorance

From Facebook:

I'm not sure if this is serious stupidity or rampant ignorance since pretty much everybody knows it is the US CONSTITUTION that begins "We the people.."

Well, everybody except this idiot.

The Phrase "we the people" is totally absent from the Declaration of Independence.

Which would be something this person would know if he actually read either document, which he obviously hasn't.

Neither has he understood either one for their historic and legal significance. And I am not patient enough to try to educate this person since he is a lost cause for any intellectual pursuit.

I would be pretty sure that things like ablative absolutes would seriously go well beyond this person's intellectual capacity.

Again, why I don't bother with the average gun loon. This clown is pretty typical for the intellectual level of a gunloon.

Of course, Gunloons will more than eagerly foist their ignorance upon one.

Ignorance isn't bliss: it's really fucking annoying.

Quote of the Day

Whatever theoretical merit there may be to the argument that there is a "right" to rebellion against dictatorial governments is without force where the existing structure of the government provides for peaceful and orderly change. We reject any principle of governmental helplessness in the face of preparation for revolution, which principle, carried to its logical conclusion, must lead to anarchy. No one could conceive that it is not within the power of Congress to prohibit acts intended to overthrow the Government by force and violence.

Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494 (1951)

You may want to actually bone up on the Constitution before you defend it.

It seems that Ammoland took a poll and found a significant percentage of its readers believe that armed revolution is somehow an option.

Once again, From the United States Constitution, Article III, Section iii, states:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

I know you people have serious problems with reading and understanding the English language, but this is pretty clear in its meaning.

As Joseph Story said about this:

The propriety of investing the national government with authority to punish the crime of treason against the United States could never become a question with any persons, who deemed the national government worthy of creation, or preservation. If the power had not been expressly granted, it must have been implied, unless all the powers of the national government might be put at defiance, and prostrated with impunity.

The Second Amendment in no way repeals this section of the Constitution--no matter what your diseased minds may tell you.

While you may wish to believe that "libtards" somehow are the ones destroying the Constitution, you are obviously wrong in that assertion if you support people who would overthrow this nation by force of arms for whatever reason you would go against the government run under the framework of the United States Constitution.

I strongly suggest that you reassess your position on this matter.

Should you find that you still advocate the use of arms against the United States realise that you are a traitor.

Those aren't my words, those are the words of the document you claim to support.

While this song is about Palestinians, I think this applies to right wing assholes who claim to hate Muslims while being willing to wage war against their own nation:

Meen erhabe?

Soverign Citizen shoots first responders

In gun friendly Texas, A sovereign citizen decided to go hunting public servants:

Dallas Fire-Rescue initially responded to a dumpster fire at Frankford and North 40th Place. The man fired at the fire engine when they arrived. Firefighters sought cover, said Dallas Lt. Jose Garcia.

Dallas police were dispatched to the same location for a missing persons call.

Garcia said the officer did not hear the initial gunshots and were met with gunfire as they walked up to the location. They retreated and secured the perimeter. SWAT was called and the man surrendered.

Additionally, responding SWAT members had to clear the area of "suspect devices".

So, actual serving Oathbreakers (you are breaking your oath if you support anyone who is engaging in insurgent activity against the US per Article III, Section iii of the document you swore an oath to uphold), do you think that anyone who is so anti-government will see you as anything other than a representative of the despised government?

When you claim to uphold the oath, think of what the Constitution ACTUALLY SAYS about rebellion and that refusing to enforce the laws made in accordance with Article VI of that document, whether you agree with them or not, really turn you into.

And it is anything but a patriot.

more on this incident here.

See also:

• Sovereign citizen movement seen by US law enforcement as top terrorist threat: study
• START Understanding Law Enforcement Intelligence Processes July 2014 pdf

Quote of the Day

I am really amazed at people who say they support the Constitution, yet can talk about armed rebellion against the United States:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

US Constitution, Article III, Section iii

The US Constitution protects States Rights?

Most of this was taken from www.outsidethebeltway.com/the-anti-federalist-impulse/ with some editorial tweeks by me. The original is by Steven L. Taylor who is the Professor and Chair of Political Science at Troy University. His main areas of expertise include parties, elections, and the institutional design of democracies. No wonder it was pretty good, but still needed a few tweeks.


I like to say that some of the defenders of the Constitution need to study up on what exactly they claim to be defending since they tend to say thing that go against the Constitution, such as the Second Amendment somehow repeals Article III, Section iii and allows one to wage war against the United States.

One of the remarkable examples of the Constitutionalist movement is that while they speak with great fervour about the Constitution and the Founding Fathers:  they rather frequently use arguments of anti-Federalists founders  (they also come out and say that the US was established as a "Christian", nation rather than a secular one as well).  For your information, the anti-Federalists were those who opposed the ratification of the US Constitution, typically on the grounds that that states ought to continue to retain their power positions under the Articles of Confederation (the US’s first "constitution", more or less, that was in place from 1777-1789 and subsequent ratification by the states).

One of the massive mistakes made by those on the rightward side of the debate who claim the sacred nature of the Constitution is the assertion that the Framers were states rights activists or that the goal of the constitution was to constrain the federal government vis-à-vis the states.  While there is a debate to be had over the appropriate scope of the federal government, as well as the meaning of things like the 10th Amendment, the commerce clause, and the general welfare clause, there is no debating that the whole goal of the US Constitution was to create a strong, viable central government.   It is indisputable that the US Constitution was written and deployed to give the federal government more power over the states than had previously existed (not the other way around as some would have it).  Yes, there are limits placed on the federal government, but the Constitution itself was not created in the context of the need to constraint government, it was created in the context of the need to create a viable, functional government (and one that was demonstrably more powerful than that which existed under the Articles of Confederation).  The argument for true state-level sovereignty was an anti-Federalist, pro-Article of Confederation argument.  Indeed, if the Framers had wanted a tiny central government that was subordinate to the states they already had one and therefore had no reason to meet in Philadelphia in 1787.

To quote James Madison from a letter to George Washington in April of 1787: “I would propose that…the national government should be armed with positive and compleat authority in all cases which require uniformity; such as the regulation of trade, including the right of taxing both exports and imports, the fixing the terms and forms of naturalization, etc. etc.”

If one is going to argue that, ultimately, the states should supersede the federal government, then one is not making federalist (i.e., pro-constitution) arguments, one is making an anti-federalist (i.e., anti-constitution) arguments. If one wants to see the Framers’ views of a system in which state power can trump federal power (i.e., a confederation) one need look no further than Federalist 15-22 (not to mention the text of the Constitution itself).  This quote from 16, which strikes me as especially relevant to refuting the Constitutionalist mindset:

The result of these observations to an intelligent mind must be clearly this, that if it be possible at any rate to construct a federal government capable of regulating the common concerns and preserving the general tranquillity, it must be founded, as to the objects committed to its care, upon the reverse of the principle contended for by the opponents of the proposed Constitution. It must carry its agency to the persons of the citizens. It must stand in need of no intermediate legislations; but must itself be empowered to employ the arm of the ordinary magistrate to execute its own resolutions. The majesty of the national authority must be manifested through the medium of the courts of justice.

It is utterly inconsistent to claim the Constitution as one’s moral foundation and parading around with a copy of it in one’s shirt pocket and then arguing from the anti-Federalist position. At a minimum, it shows that one does not understand one’s own arguments. Mostly it is just a constant source of amazement to me that those who are the most vocal about the Constitution and the Founding generation get it so wrong most of the time. I would much prefer it if these folks would simply say, “You know, the anti-Federalist had a point about X, Y, and Z” (but that would mean that the Constitution isn’t perfect, which would create its own set of difficulties for them). I would also add that the Anti-Federalist position was the one that lost otherwise the would still be trying to function under the Articles of Confederation: if it even still existed.

Then again, it also shows that they have no real understanding of the Constitution or Constitutional law.

Next installment: why it is wrong to claim the Declaration or Independence as a legal basis for revolt (or Article VI for idiots).

Why Civilian Control of the Military?

I found this article while looking up Civilian Control of the Military.  It is found here:
www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=45870

By Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, May 2, 2001


Civilian control of the military is so ingrained in America that we hardly give it a second thought. Most Americans don't realize how special this relationship is and how it has contributed to the country.
The framers of the U.S. Constitution worked to ensure the military would be under civilian control. They did not want to emulate the European experience. The colonies had just fought a war for freedom from Britain. The king controlled the British military, and the framers had no interest in duplicating that system.
When they wrote the Constitution they separated the responsibilities for the military, placing the responsibilities firmly in civilian hands.
Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution states that Congress shall have the power "to raise and support Armies …" and "to provide and maintain a Navy." In addition, Congress must provide for the state militias when they are called to federal service.
Article II, Section 2 states, "The President shall be the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States when called into the actual Service of the United States."
Congress has the power to declare war and to make the rules for governing the military.
So the framers spread responsibilities for the military around. The president and Congress had to work together to use the military.
<snip>


With the growth of political parties, an officer's political allegiance became important. President John Adams appointed Federalist officers to the military. As Jefferson's private secretary, Army Capt. Meriwether Lewis vetted the "Republican" (later Democratic) credentials of his fellow Army officers.
This reinforced the belief in the U.S. military that officers should not participate in politics. They should follow the orders of the president and the wishes of the Congress no matter who was in power. 

<snip>

Military members swear "to support and defend the Constitution of the United States." One of the more successful aspects of that document is civilian control of the military.

Question of the day

Q:  The question -- does federal law supersede or take precedent over state law?

A:  Federal law supersedes per Article VI:

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

So, when some local yokel says they won't enforce federal law, they are being an Unconstitutionalist.

Article VI for laymen:

What I am referring to is, Article VI of the US COnstitution which states:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

I am seriously annoyed that no one in the US, especially people who say they "support the Constitution", protest when this topic is brought into the political arena.

Anyway, this meme pretty much sums up how I would like a politician to respond to the issue.

The National Guard being a creature of Federal law.

But it's not me who came up with this--it's actually in the Constitution.

Article I, Section 8, clause 16 not only gives congress the power to arm the militia, but it also gives it the authority to organise it. And given that the Supremacy clause (Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution) states that "the Laws of the United States which shall be made" according to the Constitution are the Supreme Law of the land, that means that if the Congress says the National Guard is the milita: Tough shit, pal, it's THE MILITIA.

I'm not going into the usual bullshit about 10 USC 311 and the unorganised miltia, but that is the equivalent of saying having a draft card makes you a member of the US military.

So, unless you are seriously suggesting the dismantling/radical reorganisation of the United States Military, then you are out of luck.

Even then, you have got to be willing to be enrolled (enlisted) to claim the right.

As Joseph Story said in his Commentaries on the Constitution 3:§ 1890:

And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights.

Bottom line--if you have a problem with something being "a creature of Federal Law"--then you really have a problem with the US Constitution.

But, as I like to say, some people who claim to defend the Constitution need to study up on what exactly they claim to be defending.

Just curious about the “get away with murder” laws

Yet another wrinkle in the assertion that the Second Amendment in some way allows for “self-Defence”:

The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution each contain a Due Process Clause. Due process deals with the administration of justice and thus the Due Process Clause acts as a safeguard from arbitrary denial of life, liberty, or property by the Government outside the sanction of law.

The general common law principle is that the law allows only reasonable force to be used in the circumstances and, what is reasonable is to be judged in the light of the circumstances as the accused believed them to be (whether reasonably or not). The jury should be directed to look at the particular facts and circumstances of the case in deciding whether a defendant had used only reasonable force.  After all, the defendant will always be of the opinion he used reasonable force.

Only reasonable force may be used.  Despite a common belief to the contrary, one is not at liberty to shoot dead a burglar wandering around one’s house if one does not fear for one’s own life in common law.
Anyway, historically Clause 39 of Magna Carta provided:

No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land.

This came into US law via the Due Process guarantees of the US Constitution found in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides:

[N]or shall any person . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law .

The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides:

[N]or shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law .

The issue here is that these laws allow for summary justice and vigilantism outside of the legal process.  One should not take the law into his/her own hands for the purposes of revenge, retribution, or sheer vigilantism.  The rule of law must be maintained and violence discouraged by a proper legal system for it to have any authority.

Of course, this is just a musing, but perhaps it will be taken up by someone else who is offended by the allowance of murder by an out of whack US legal system.

Additional thoughts on this topic:

I should have mentioned the concept of wergild, which was a value placed on every human being and every piece of property in the Salic Code. If property was stolen, or someone was injured or killed, the guilty person would have to pay weregild as restitution to the victim’s family or to the owner of the property.

The important aspect of this was that the payment of weregild performed an important legal mechanism in early Germanic society since the other common form of legal reparation at this time was blood revenge.

The foundation of the American legal system rests on the Rule of Law, a concept embodied in the notion that the United States is a nation of laws and not of men. Under the rule of law, laws are thought to exist independent of, and separate from, human will. Even when the human element factors into legal decision making, the decision maker is expected to be constrained by the law in making his or her decision. In other words, police officers, judges, and juries should act according to the law and not according to their personal preferences or private agendas.

Vigilantism is the people’s complete disregard for the rule of law. The problem is that vigilantes risk starting a cycle of violence and lawlessness in which the victims of vigilantism take the law into their own hands to exact pay-back.

There is a reason that Clause 29 of Magna Charta provided that:

NO Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will We not pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the land. We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right.

These laws are a denial of justice and right which has been sanctioned by the state.
There is a reason that the force used for self-defence is that which is reasonable to stop the threat yet respecting life.

And justice.    There is a long case line that works to promote the rule of law and discourage vigilantism in the Common Law (and other legal systems)

You have a problem if Barack Obama is a Muslim.

Not a question, but a statement since the Constitution that some people claim to respect and all that says (Article VI):

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

Repeat that last part just to make it clear to you who don't get that the US is a SECULAR Society (like it or not):

no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

That means it doesn't matter what religion Barack Obama (or Mitt Romney or anybody else for that matter) happens to be.

You might have missed that bit since that paragraph comes right after:

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

And if you don't think the founders would support this: guess again:

"Both House and Ground were vested in Trustees, expressly for the Use of any Preacher of any religious Persuasion who might desire to say something to the People of Philadelphia, the Design [purpose] in building not being to accommodate any particular Sect, but the Inhabitants in general, so that even if the Mufti of Constantinople were to send a Missionary to preach Mahometanism [Islam] to us, he would find a Pulpit at his Service. "

As I said, you have a problem because the Constitution isn't on your side if you are trying to make someone's religion an issue in US politics.  In fact, religion would not intrude in US politics given the US's being a secular state--I only wish more people would be disgusted by this trend.

But, maybe some of you aren't  the strong supporters of the Constitution that you claim to be.

Or, maybe you just need to brush up on what exactly it is that you are supposed to be defending.

The US is a secular nation: understand that fact.

And how would I do on a quiz about the Constitution?

I'd ace it--of course!

And how would YOU do?


And while we're at it:

Essay Question on the Second Amendment:

Please explain how a document which states as its purposes is to "form a more perfect Union...insure domestic Tranquility" (Preamble).

Then makes it clear that the role of the militia is "execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions" (Article I, Section 8, clause 15).

We need to add in Article IV, Section 4, the Domestic Violence Clause:

"The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence."  

This provision in our Constitution requires that the federal government protect us from harms that we inflict upon ourselves, harms that threaten our health and our survival: in particular domestic insurrections.

Finally, Article VI:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

That rules out "natural law" as being legal precedent (as well as other documents such as the Declaration of Independence in addition to misquotations from the founding fathers) .

With the real kicker being Article III, Section. 3:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Constitution seems pretty clear that insurrection is not a right.

Next we come to Amendment II:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Now, I need to keep reminding you of the rule of construction: Expressio unius est exclusio alterius.

 "The expression of one thing is the exclusion of another."  That is items not on the list are impliedly assumed not to be covered by the statute or a contract term. However, sometimes a list in a statute is illustrative, not exclusionary. This is usually indicated by a word such as "includes" or "such as."

None of that is present in the above passages.


Simple form since I know the calibre of intelligence here:

• If the statute mentions it--it is covered.

• If the statute don't mention it--it ain't covered.

In this case, we do not see anything in the Second Amendment which mentions "fighting tyranny" (as it also lacks any specific mention of personal uses such as hunting or self-defence).


The rules to this are simple and found here. BTW, using the rules, in particular, Internal and external consistency, where it is presumed that a statute will be interpreted so as to be internally consistent. That is, a  particular section of the statute shall not be divorced from the rest of the act.The Second Amendment applies to the Militia based upon Article I, Section 8, Clause 16 granting congress the power to ARM the Militia.

Please explain how things which are not specifically can be legally covered?  How do you read into the text things which not only aren't present, but are inconsistent with the document?

I can't wait to see the idiotic comments you will make--especially Greg who will show his ignorance of law, yet be all too willing to pontificate despite his lack of knowledge on the topic.

Shays' Rebellion

I mention this event quite a bit, but am amazed that it has been expunged from the US consciousness.  That's a shame because it is highly important to the development of the US as a nation.  There have been many rebellions both before and after US Independence, yet I would argue that this is one of the most important of them. In my opinion, it does emphasise that the War for American Independence was a civil war which left more issues unresolved than it solved. It also highlights the fact that the US is a rather belligerent nation that there are frequent insurrections and people who feel this is somehow a right.

Only three years after the American Revolution ended, thousands of Massachusetts citizens took up arms against their new state government. The rebellion started on August 29, 1786. It was precipitated by several factors: financial difficulties brought about by a post-war economic depression, a credit squeeze caused by a lack of hard currency, and fiscally harsh government policies instituted in 1785 to solve the state's debt problems. Protesters, including many war veterans, shut down county courts in the later months of 1786 to stop the judicial hearings for tax and debt collection. The protesters became radicalized against the state government following the arrests of some of their leaders, and began to organize an armed force. The rebellion took place in a political climate where reform of the country's governing document, the Articles of Confederation, was widely seen as necessary.

Shays' Rebellion was the main impetus for the adoption of the US Constitution.  In fact, the rebellion hadn't been quelled (resistance continued until June 1787) when the Constitutional Convention began in Philadelphia (May 1787)!

This is why the Constitution makes it clear that its purposes is "insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare".   Also, it makes clear that the role of the militia is "execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions" (Article I, Section 8, Clause 15) and that waging war on the US is Treason (Article III, Section iii).  Article IV, Section 4 talks about "domestic violence".  All these refer to Shays' Rebellion.

Anyway, the best resource for this event on the internet is found here.  It is a site run by Springfield Technical Community College (fitting as this was the location of the main "battle").  Although, I do wish they would update and fill in the gaps on the site since a lot of important essays have yet to be written.  It is an interesting site to explore.

And maybe if enough people ask, they will fill in the gaps on this incredible resource.

Civic right interpretation of the Second Amendment?

Yet another reason that the Heller-McDonald decisions are unconstitutional besides judicial misconduct.

Not only do they go against the proper interpretation of the Second Amendment as explained by Justice William O. Douglas, who was on the Supreme Court at the time of Miller in Adams v. Williams, 407 US 143 (1972):

The police problem is an acute one not because of the Fourth Amendment, but because of the ease with which anyone can acquire a pistol. A powerful lobby dins into the ears of our citizenry that these gun purchases are constitutional rights protected by the Second Amendment, which reads, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

There is under our decisions no reason why stiff state laws governing the purchase and possession of pistols may not be enacted. There is no reason why pistols may not be barred from anyone with a police record. There is no reason why a State may not require a purchaser of a pistol to pass a psychiatric test. There is no reason why all pistols should not be barred to everyone except the police.

The leading case is United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, upholding a federal law making criminal the shipment in interstate commerce of a sawed-off shotgun. The law was upheld, there being no evidence that a sawed-off shotgun had "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia." Id., at 178. The Second Amendment, it was held, "must be interpreted and applied" with the view of maintaining a "militia."

"The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be 151*151secured through the Militia—civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion." Id., at 178-179.

Critics say that proposals like this water down the Second Amendment. Our decisions belie that argument, for the Second Amendment, as noted, was designed to keep alive the militia. But if watering-down is the mood of the day, I would prefer to water down the Second rather than the Fourth Amendment. I share with Judge Friendly a concern that the easy extension of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1, to "possessory offenses" is a serious intrusion on Fourth Amendment safeguards. "If it is to be extended to the latter at all, this should be only where observation by the officer himself or well authenticated information shows `that criminal activity may be afoot.' " 436 F. 2d, at 39, quoting Terry v. Ohio, supra, at 30.

Douglas' explanation makes sense in relation to three rules of Constitutionalinterpretation:

•  Provisions of the Constitution are mutually consistent. There are no internal logical contradictions, except that a provision of an amendment inconsistent with a previous provision supersedes that provision.
• None of the words are without force and effect, except those superseded by amendments, unless such amendments are repealed. Except for the statement of purpose in the preamble, every word was intended by the Framers to be legally normative, and not just advisory, declaratory, aspirational, or exhortatory. Verba intelligi ut aliquid operantur debent. Words should be interpreted to give them some effect.
•  Rights and powers are complementary. Every right recognized by the Constitution is an immunity, that is, a right against a positive action by government, and is equivalent to a restriction on delegated powers. Conversely, every delegated power is a restriction on immunities. An immunity may be expressed either as a declaration of the right, or as a restriction on powers.

The second points out that not only is the Second Amendment a declaration of a right, but it is a limitation upon Congress' power under Article I, Section 8, Clause 16:

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

And the following purposes stated for adopting the constitution:

insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare

One of the stated purposes of the US Constitution was to address matters of common defence--self-defence is not mentioned any where in the Constitution, and it is not explicitly stated in the Second Amendment.  On the other hand, the Civic right interpretation ties the Second Amendment to the Militia clauses and Congress' power over the militia.

There is another clause in the US Constitution which allows for  the federal government protect us from harms that we inflict upon ourselves, harms that threaten our health and our survival.

Article IV, Section 4: 
"The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence."

Not only does the Constitution contradict the concept that one can wage war against the government since the only crime mentioned in the Constitution is precisely that (Article III, Section iii), but the domestic violence clause of the Constitution takes it beyond mere insurrection.

On May 29,1787, the very first day of business at the Constitutional Convention, the first speaker's most vehement point was the need to have a central government strong enough to assure survival in the face of threats both domestic and foreign. Alexander Hamilton considered domestic dangers "more alarming than the arms and arts of foreign nations," and that the entire resources of the nation are to be made available to deal with a condition of domestic violence. Spending – for whatever danger was at hand – "ought to know no other bounds than the exigencies of the nation and the resources of the community."

In James Madison's Notes of Debates (Ohio Univ. Press, 1984), there is no indication that the framers intended Art. IV, Sec. 4 to be limited to temporary insurrections and massive criminal assaults. At the convention on August 30, 1787, a motion was made to strike out "domestic violence" and insert in its place the term "insurrections." That motion was defeated. They did not want to limit the federal obligation to any particular type of event. (Page 560 of the Notes.)

Violence was clearly intended to mean more than just rebellions or physical challenge to government.

The Constitution allows for items which are detrimental to the general welfare, which firearms are, to be regulated.  This addresses concerns of public safety and general welfare, which was yet another concern of the founders--they would be appalled that the Second Amendment was being used to justify not only high levels of gun violence, but to say that insurrection was constitutional, let alone patriotic.

Rules of Constitutional Construction

Just a simple list, but something people need to be aware of before they start coming up with nonsense. It was found here

Within these methods, we can, by study of the writings of the Founders, and the writings they read, elicit such principles for interpreting or constructing the Constitution for the United States as the following:

1. The Constitution is the written document. Although it may be considered to include the understandings of its words as of the time of ratification, it does not include the subsequent body of practices or precedents upon which constitutional decisions might be based, which may or may not be consistent with it, or authorized by it. The written document refers to itself as "this Constitution", and provides for only four methods by which it may be amended, all of which apply only to the written document.
   
   
2. The authority for provisions of the Constitution is the ratifications and state admissions. Current consent or acquiescence, or lack thereof, to the Constitution or any practice, does not affect the original constitutive acts, and has no authority, unless expressed through adoption of amendments as provided in Article V.
   
   
3. Provisions of the Constitution are mutually consistent. There are no internal logical contradictions, except that a provision of an amendment inconsistent with a previous provision supersedes that provision.
   
   
4. None of the words are without force and effect, except those superseded by amendments, unless such amendments are repealed. Except for the statement of purpose in the preamble, every word was intended by the Framers to be legally normative, and not just advisory, declaratory, aspirational, or exhortatory. Verba intelligi ut aliquid operantur debent. Words should be interpreted to give them some effect.
   
   
5. Rights and powers are complementary. Every right recognized by the Constitution is an immunity, that is, a right against a positive action by government, and is equivalent to a restriction on delegated powers. Conversely, every delegated power is a restriction on immunities. An immunity may be expressed either as a declaration of the right, or as a restriction on powers.
   
   
6. There are no redundancies within the original unamended Constitution. However, amendments may be alternative ways of expressing equivalent content in the original unamended Constitution or previous amendments. More specifically, the Bill of Rights added no new content not implicit in the original unamended Constitution, except the twenty dollar rule of the Seventh Amendment.
   
   
7. The Constitution was intended to define a functionally complete and harmonious system. That does not mean, however, that all powers anyone might think the nation or any branch, level, office or department should have, were actually delegated.
   
   
8. Original "intent" is functional, not motivational. The private motives of the Framers or Founders are irrelevant and largely unknowable, and likely to have been diverse. The common law rule of interpretation understood by the Founders was to discern the functional role of elements of the law, not the private purposes of the lawgivers.
   
   
9. The ratification debates are the best evidence of original understanding. The arguments of those opposed to ratification are not just the positions of the losers in the debates, which some might dismiss as not indicative of original understanding. As the debates proceeded, understandings evolved and clarified, and positions changed. Most opponents were satisfied by adoption of a Bill of Rights, and by assurances by the proponents concerning how the words of the Constitution would be interpreted, and those assurances must be considered part of the original understanding. That means that a construction to which the more significant "anti-federalists" would object is almost certainly incorrect.
   
   
10. Powers are narrow, rights broad. The entire theme and tenor of the ratification debates was that delegated powers were to be interpreted as strictly as possible, consistent with the words, and rights as broadly as possible, with the presumption in favor of the right, and the burden of proof on those claiming a power. Potestas stricte interpretatur. A power is strictly interpreted. In dubiis, non præsumitur pro potentia. In cases of doubt, the presumption is not in favor of a power.
    
    
11. Delegated powers cannot be subdelegated. The U.S. Constitution vests all legislative powers in Congress, and all judicial powers in the Supreme Court and inferior courts, except as specifically expressed. Executive branch officials may subdelegate but must remain responsible for the actions of their subordinates. There can be no authority exercised that is not accountable through constitutional officials.Delegata potestas non potest delegari. A delegated power cannot be delegated. 9 Inst. 597.
    
    
12. The power to regulate is not the power to prohibit all modalities of something. It is only the power to issue prescriptions to "make regular", enforceable only by deprivations of property or privileges, not of life, limb, or liberty. There must always be some modality that is not prohibited.
    
    
13. Implied powers are only to "carry into Execution" an expressed power and not to do whatever is necessary to achieve the intent for which a power might be exercised. Delegation of a power is delegation of the right to make a certain kind of effort, not to do whatever is necessary to get a desired outcome.
    
    
14. There can be no common law crimes. They are in conflict with the prohibitions on ex post facto laws and bills of attainder.
    
    
15. Rights may not be disabled or unduly burdened by legislative or executive process. "Due" process is judicial only, involving the granting of a petition to disable a right of the defendant, with the burden of proof on the plaintiff or prosecutor, and with the defendant having at least those minimum protections that prevailed during the Founding. with similar disablements having similar standards of proof and protection.
    
    
16. There is no right without a remedy. Ubi jus ibi remedium. There must always be an accessible forum in which a complainant has oyer and terminer for any petition.
    
    
17. The Founders were learning. "Original meaning" is not just about what the Founders consciously meant at the moment of ratification, but includes what they would discover with further study of the legal tradition they invoked in the words they chose. Thus, they referred to authors like Blackstone and Coke when they were unsure what they meant, and so must we.
    
    
18. Early practice indicative but not dispositive. Early practice by the Founders may provide evidence of their aspirations in the words they chose, but should not be regarded as perfect expressions of their intent. Practice can represent compromise with practical concerns and may lag behind the ideals contained in the words.
    
    
19. Mental models of mental models. Each of us has a mental model of the world that includes a model of the mental models others have of the world. Communication is possible only to the extent that our mental models of the mental models of others are somehow accurate or congruent. When a lawgiver issues a law, a command to others for future compliance, he is relying on others to understand his words the way he does, and those others are relying on him to use words with the meanings they have for them. But words are an imperfect way to convey meanings, and if the recipient of the command cannot interrogate the lawgiver for his meaning, he must try to improve his mental model of the lawgiver's mental model by such means as learning to accurately predict what the lawgiver will write about matters the recipient has not previously read.
    
    
20. Find the right level of abstraction. It was common for the Founders to use somewhat more concrete words to mean broader principles. Thus, "press" or "arms" is not limited to the technology of the time, but refers to the general function they served. "Militia" does not mean merely those legally obliged to respond to an official call-up, but defense activity generally.