Undisputed Fact #2
Discussions around the Second Amendment’s drafting were focused on political structure.
The tactic most heavily relied on by “collective right” academics to project an illusion of rational argument, this one is similar to the last in that it allows the author to preach ad nauseum about a non-controversial point. The early debates indeed reflect little or no emphasis on the private use of arms, but the same is true regarding the freedoms of speech and press. Imagine if someone were to argue that the First Amendment only protects activities related to the criticism of government, and not to personal matters, presenting as evidence the following statements from George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison:
​​​
“No government ought to be without censors: and where the press is free, no one ever will.”
“Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost.”
​
The 1780 Massachusetts Declaration of Rights even contains what appears to be a rough template for the future Second Amendment:
​
​
None of the Founders demanded explicit protection for the right to use foul language or gossip about one’s neighbors, just as none of them demanded explicit protection for the right to defend against common criminals, because these activities are inseparable from the general rights of speech and armed defense. It is wholly unsurprising that constitutional debate was focused on ensuring the people’s ability to counter tyranny by forbidding federal interference with speech, press, assembly, arms, and personal privacy. “Collective right” manipulators have nevertheless devoted countless pages of their works to demonstrating the Founders’ concern with the ability of armed citizens to assemble as a military force, as if that somehow negates the entire premise of the Second Amendment as affirming an absence of federal power.
The federal government was never supposed to have any ability to dictate what Americans do in their private lives as long as they aren’t endangering others, whether a given activity is mentioned by name in the Bill of Rights or not. The Ninth Amendment declares that “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people,” and that does include a right to do things like grow plants and engage in consensual adult relationships—but it’s absurd to argue that such activities deserve not just equal but more protection than those which the Founders safeguarded in writing.