“If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government; and which, against the usurpation of the national rulers, may be exerted with an inﬁnitely better prospect of success, than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts, of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defence. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.”–Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers No. 28, New York Packet. Tuesday, December 25, 1787.From Webster's 1828 Dictionary, the same as used by S.C.O.T.U.S. in determining original intent:
ParamountNow unless the court is willing to admit that we have one of the negative "forms of government", the original intent is quite clear. And Mr. Hamilton had written the above BEFORE the introduction of the Bill of Rights.
1. Superior to all others; possessing the highest title or jurisdiction; as lord paramount, the chief lord of the fee, or of lands, tenements and hereditaments. In England, the king is lord paramount, of whom all the land in the kingdom is supposed to be held. But in some cases the lord of several manors is called the lord paramount.
2. Eminent; of the highest order.
3. Superior to all others; as, private interest is usually paramount to all other considerations.
PAR'AMOUNT, n. The chief; the highest in rank or order.
Of course the Bill of Rights itself makes the matter became crystal clear:
Congress of the United StatesOur government was expressly denied the authority and power over the right of the people to keep and bear our own personal arms. They were expressly Constitutionally forbidden from encroaching upon that right in any way, shape or form. And any past, current or future attempt to do so is nothing more than bold-faced usurpation of authority. Which of course makes any such attempt NULL and VOID. It has no Constitutional validity or force of 'law' whatsoever. For the Constitution itself - the Supreme Law of the Land - expressly forbids it.
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further DECLARATORY and RESTRICTIVE clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.
ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution….
DECLARATORY clause; [Common Defense]
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,
RESTRICTIVE clause; [Self-Defense]
the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall NOT be infringed.
Thus, whatever the 'court', or any legislator or executive claims to the contrary is nothing more than an outright lie. For there is no mistaking the "interpretation" of what both Mr. Hamilton and our Bill of Rights had stated. And THAT is a FACT, and one which is beyond all possible refute.