Replies

Hamilton was clear in Federalist 29 that the militia was meant to be a check and balance against a standing army and a tryant's desire to use it against the people.

Hamilton also wrote in Federalist 29 the description of regulated by contrasting the training of a standing army with the occasional training of the people at large.

Hamilton concludes by saying that the people, who are similarly armed as the army, and similarly trained in the use of the arms, would be a deterrent against the misuse of the army.

-PJ

The things Hamilton didn't know are legion ~ and he'd opposed a Bill of Rights imagining that the British tradition of an unwritten constitution would carry over into how we interpreted our written constituion.

His opinion on almost any item in the Bill of Rights is suspect from the start ~ so he concocted a sales pitch he thought would work but wouldn't get into questions of the Fundamental Rights of Man!

Let me put it this way, he could have pointed to the Huguenot experience ~ but he didn't ~ because he was English and last thing he'd ever do is give a Frenchie credit for anything. Thankfully most of the folks involved in preparing the Bill of Rights respected the Huguenots and most of them had an ancestor or two who came to England or America as a refugee from Louis XIV, or earlier as a refugee from the Religious Wars, so knowledgeable people did the writing, and politicians sold the story to the Federalists.

Hamilton reminds me a lot of Rep. Jim Moran ~

"Hamilton concludes by saying that the people, who are similarly armed as the army, and similarly trained in the use of the arms, would be a deterrent against the misuse of the army."

Given what is being said here about the 2nd Amendment and Hamilton, would it be possible for Governor's (they would be Republican's no doubt) to call for a "practice" assembly of "irregulars" (who would assemble at a location(s) prescribed by the state governor) openly carrying arms? Was that ever done in any state?