Reply #67: By defnition, democracy is not tyranny.

[Joe Steel]

I don't understand.

The Founders fought for the right of self-government and all it entails. A gun recovery and ban would be a product of self-government. Opposing it might feel good to some but it would be an affront to the founding generation.

They also fought to resist tyranny, and sought to keep an armed citizenry as a defense against tyranny.

By defnition, democracy is not tyranny. Assuming, the gun recovery and ban was the product of the constitutional process, it couldn't be tyrannical.

I'm assuming by "gun recovery" you mean "gun confiscation", as you can't "recover" something that wasn't yours to begin with". Our founders would consider firearm confiscation and bans to be tyrannical, no matter what they were a product of. I have no doubt the founders would oppose such confiscation and ban efforts.

The Founders created a government which they empowered to promote and provide for the general welfare. They would have no trouble with gun recovery as long as it was constitutionally-created.

Sure the founders were in favor of self-government. But they were also in favor having the ability to resist that same government by force of arms should it no longer respond to the will of the people.

That's an all too common misunderstanding.

A tyrannical government is harmless without the means of enforcing its will. In the Founders' view, that demanded a standing army and they feared a standing army with good reason. Standing armies such as that of King George III comprised aristocrats, adventurers, impressed derelicts and foreign mercenaries. Such armies had little or no connection to or interests in the communities they oppressed. The King could deploy them against the citizenry with little fear of mutiny. The Founders believed an army of common citizens would not take-up arms against their own families and that they need not fear it. Hamiltion touched on this in Federalist 29. The Second Amendment declares the sovereign People's right to ensure the army comprised only common citizens.

If it were the will of the people to repeal the second amendment I suppose they would support it, but I do not think they would approve of it. They were quite clear in their fear of having the citizenry be at the mercy of their governments armed forces.

Your argument reflects a false premise. A proper understanding of the Second Amendment, not its repeal, would support the gun recovery and ban.