Originally Posted by Konrad
Deterrence against governmental aggressors (Foreign or domestic). - This is of course the "Insurrectionist" theory. I.e. that the founding fathers intended the 2nd A. to be a last line of defense against an encroaching domestic government OR a compliment/supplement to the existing (small) standing army against a foreign force.
Konrad, the second amendment has two parts. The militia was meant to be the defense against insurrection and foreign invasion. Heller
determined that our right to personal self defense is not tied to militia service. Today, the US Military (not really envisioned by our founders but necessary in today's world) serves as the defender against foreign enemies while our police forces defend us from unlawful insurrection.
As I have stated before the Insurrectionist Theory cannot hold water against Article One Section Eight or Article Three Section Three of the COTUS. So, the use of the your reason number three would not make FA constitutionally protected against regulations like the NFA. Would any interpretation of the 2A make sense to say that a well-regulated body authorized
by the government is intended to train itself for action against
the government? That would be a suicide clause would it not?
Here is a quote:
The U.S. Supreme Court has issued a qualified rejection of the insurrection theory. According to the Court in Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494, 71 S. Ct. 857, 95 L. Ed. 1137 (1951), "[W]hatever theoretical merit there may be to the argument that there is a 'right' to rebellion against dictatorial governments is without force where the existing structure of the government provides for peaceful and orderly change." Scholars have interpreted this to mean that as long as the government provides for free elections and trials by jury, private citizens have no right to take up arms against the government.
Those free elections maintain our freedoms and not unorganized armed civilians.