but since some will not others dare not lay them aside
There is nothing unclear or ambiguous about that. There is no half truth or inaccuracy associated with that last statement.
Paine understood that we DARE NOT lay our fireamrs aside. The same holds true today.
Your own attempt to scew a very clear quote from its obvious intent over towards the opposite meaning falls flat of its face, both logically and in fact. Is this how you teach American Government as well?
I am a very strong 2nd amendment advocate. I am also a Christian who is looking forward to the day when my Savior, Jesus Christ, returns to this earth and ushers in that ideal that Paine eluded to. I personally would prefer that the idela was here now, and that no one had, or needed a firearm. However, since historically it is clear that since some will not lay them aside, particularly those seeking mastery and coersion over those who are not disposed to bother anyone, namely institutional and individual tyrants ... therefore I (and we) dare not lay our own aside.
You may be disposed to try harder ... but you still have not answered either Travis McGee's clear quotes from the founders you indicate were ambiguous ... or now Joanie's either for that matter. And you still have not answered my own and several others engagement with you regarding the issue of citezens fighting against modern armies. Particularly the matter of the logistics of modern armies fighting very large, and very well armed populations when there is no hope for them to establish a clear boundary from which to launch their offensives. In other words, when there are no front lines and when millions of insurgents surround them. (Re-read my post number 264 as a refresher).
I believe Travis Mcgee, himself a very qualified former Navy Seal, and officer at that, has been quoted as saying that his money is on the side with the 10,000,000 scoped hunting rifles. He may know something you don't... you think?
I believe I speak for most Second Amendment types (your term) when I say that we are not enamored of arms (and neither was Thomas Paine). What we are enamored of -- and dedicated to preserving, at all costs -- is the concept of the right of self defense against a government which has the potential (and makes frequent use of it) to usurp our individual liberties. And to that end, our final, no-other-option-remaining defense will be the (reluctant, but no less determined) use of arms. All of us hope we will never have to use that defense against agents of our own government, but we will – if pushed to do so.
As for Paine’s comment that .... the balance of power is the scale of peace .... the same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike, I believe you would be hard-pressed to find a Second Amendment type who would disagree with that statement. We are not enemies of peace (far from it). We dream of it just as much as the current crop of useful idiot protestors do. The only difference is that we are realists. They are generally either hopeless idealists, or dupes.
As Paine asserts, if we lived in a world ‘destitute of arms,’ owning a gun for self defense would be all but unnecessary. But would mankind, and its governments, then be able to settle all disputes, and claim all territory, through rational, logical, common sense debate and dialogue? I think not.
As sure as you and I are breathing, there would be those in this world who would seek to use clubs and stones in order to dictate to, or enslave, others. History is replete with such examples. It’s the nature of man – some are inherently more domineering, and see themselves as destined to wield power over others. (In Paine’s own words: ‘The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian.’) And it is the natural right of those good men to retain the means to preserve their liberties against such types. In such a world [barren of guns], we realistic, Second Amendment types would no doubt be determined to preserve our God-given right to keep and bear clubs and stones, because the power-hungry type would be just as determined to use them to enslave us.
So, choose your degree of defensive weapons: clubs and stones, firearms, nuclear/chemical/biological weapons of mass destruction …. there will always be men, and civilizations, ready and willing to use them to enslave others. And there will always be others (your Second Amendment types) who will fight to their dying breath to retain their ability to defend themselves against the power-mongers – with commensurate weaponry.
History has proven that any attempt to remove defensive weapons from a free populace simply results in that populace’s enslavement, because the scoundrels who deem it their destiny to control the common man then gain the upper hand.
Tom Paine was waxing utopian philosophical -- as we all do, now and then -- in his 'a world destitute of arms' statement. But note that he comes back down to earth in its conclusion: ‘but since some will [possess arms], others dare not lay them aside.’
In not giving credence, or emphasis, to that last all-important portion of his statement, it seems to me that you [inadvertently, I am sure] have also made the same case that we Second Amendment types have been trying to get you to acknowledge. (I thank you for that ... and so would Mr. Paine.)