Yes, and those revisionists include those who believe that the 1st Amendment protection of free speech doesn't mean flag burning, or that the 14th Amendment doesn't necessarily apply to those whose sexual preference is different. Even those right here on FR who are on your side of the issue, even on this very thread admit that there are "reasonable restrictions", but just not as far as Rudy went. So whose expedience shall we accept, and whose shall we deny?
I'm more interested in the Constitution's authors' original intent, and maintaining it against the onslaught of our "benevolent" protectors like Giuliani. That's the conservative viewpoint.
The conservative position would be a respect for the Constitution and especially the Nation that was made possible. I hate to tell you this, but if you believe that completely unfettered access to any military style weapon desired is a guaranteed "right", don't look to any of your candidates, including the most ardent conservative out there for suppoort.
- James Madison in The Federalist Papers : No. 46
Yes, I've read all of the Papers as well as the Anti-Federalist Papers. A couple of points. First, Madison was not appointed by anyone to proffer the "intent". They were his viewpoints and those of the other 3 authors of the Papers, which were written to help advertise the new Constitution and get it ratified as early as possible. Why should his viewpoint be any more official than anyone involved in putting the Constitution together and who assisted in the ratification process? Second, a reading of that paragraph which refers to the militia and the local governments which exist in a republic, shows that those institutions if manned by the people, which they are, would help to prevent some unknown "ambition of enterprise...". I agree, though it seems to say nothing of private armies of every type outside of any organized subordinate governments or militias. In fact, what would emerge in a nation of private little armies, armed to the teeth would be just the "ambition of enterprise", Madison warned of.
Madison was the original author of the second amendment. Madison would have been a staunch RKBA supporter today.
Perhaps, though it is not apparent from that writing. Nor do I believe anyone who had the respect for this Nation that Madison had would countenance a thousand little armies running around the Country with every conceivable type of weapons system imaginable. No, I don't think so.
Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors.
He probably wouldn't have been talking about those who made up the Whiskey Rebellion under President Washington. It does seem strange that Madison believed the best way to preserve the freedom we had was by a substantially strengthened central government. To what end, to permit the people, whom he trusted, to arm themselves so well as to bring that very government down? Hardly. His vision could not countenance the weaponry that exists today, and while RKBA folks say that's an irrelevant point, I don't think any judge anywhere would agree with their viewpoint on it.
If the militia in some area decided it dodn't like the government, but the militias in all the nearby areas decided they thought the government was just fine and that other militia was out of line, then the latter militias would act against the former and, outnumbering it, likely quell any attempt at rebellion. On the other hand, if the other militias also though the government was in the wrong then unless the government could summon together a large enough group of militias to act against those that opposed it, it would have to back down.
As I see it, the Constitution was meant, in part, as a guide so that people could know when to fight against rogue militias who opposed legitimate government action, and when to join with militias who legitimately opposed rogue government action.