The rights of the people to have guns was for a lot of reasons - and the ability to throw off an oppressive government (like King George) was huge. And to be able to throw off America’s new government as well if need be.
But it also includes a person’s natural rights, and God-given rights. Which includes his personal defense of his life and others and his property.
I think if we just focus on the political, it is easier for these liberals to take away our rights. “Why does anybody need a gun? That is what the police are for! Or the militia, we have an army now.”
I just did a quick search remembering that some of the early state constitutions talked about self defense:
“When Pennsylvania adopted the first right-to-bear-arms guarantee in the newly independent states in 1776, it did not do so in a vacuum. That it was an established right under common law or natural law seems to be suggested by Commonwealth v. Ray, which declared void a Philadelphia
ordinance prohibiting the unlicensed carrying of a firearm on public property. The Pennsylvania Superior Court invalidated the city ordinance on the following grounds:
The right of citizens of Pennsylvania to bear arms in defense of themselves; their property and the State predates any Constitution of the Commonwealth, and has been
embodied in every Constitution we have had...
“Article I, Section 1. All men are born equally free and
independent, and have certain inherent and indefeasible rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing and protecting property and reputation, and of pursuing their
own happiness.
Article I, Section 21. The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.”
***********************
Later on in that paper they talked about the Massachusett’s constitution which only talks about the defense of the state. Some guy was parading in the street with a firearm by himself and was charged with a crime. The idea was that he was not in training or any form associated with defense of the state.
Of course that same argument is about the 2nd Amendment today due to liberals not understanding what “militia” means, nor “well-regulated”. And I forget the terminology, but how “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” is independent of the militia thing in the sentence structure.
Your conclusions need to be concise. Basically, the person bearing arms IS the judge.