Is self-defense law vigilante justice?

Following is my reply, to the article linked in the headline, left on Keep and Bear Arms and sent to the Christian Science Monitor;

Is self-defense law vigilante justice?
By Patrik Jonsson
.
Well, let's see what the Founders of Our Country had to say about that Patrik.
.
ALL OF THE STATE LAWS, CONTRARY TO THE RKBA, ARE REPUGNANT TO THE CONSTITUTION, WITNESS:
.
"the subject must particularly recommend a proper federal system to all the sincere and considerate friends of republican government, since it shows that in exact proportion as the territory of the Union may be formed into more circumscribed Confederacies, or States oppressive combinations of a majority will be facilitated: the best security, UNDER THE REPUBLICAN FORMS, FOR THE RIGHTS OF EVERY CLASS OF CITIZENS, WILL BE DIMINISGED: and consequently the stability and independence of some member of the government, the only other security, must be proportionately increased. Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society.
.
It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit. In a society under the forms of which the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be said to reign as in a state of nature, where the weaker individual is not secured against the violence of the stronger; and as, in the latter state, even the stronger individuals are prompted, by the uncertainty of their condition, to submit to a government which may protect the weak as well as themselves; so, in the former state, will the more powerful factions or parties be gradnally induced, by a like motive, to wish for a government which will protect all parties, the weaker as well as the more powerful." - James Madison, Federalist #51
.
The FEDERAL GOVERNMENT is SWORN to DEFEND and UPHOLD ALL of OUR RIGHTS!
.
Amendment II
.
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the RIGHT of THE PEOPLE to KEEP and BEAR ARMS, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!
.
But if the execution of the laws of the national government should not require the intervention of the State legislatures, if they were to pass into immediate operation upon the citizens themselves, the particular governments could not interrupt their progress without an open and violent exertion of an unconstitutional power. No omissions nor evasions would answer the end. They would be obliged to act, and in such a manner as would leave no doubt that they had encroached on the national rights...
.
An experiment of this nature would always be hazardous in the face of a constitution in any degree competent to its own defense, and of a people enlightened enough to distinguish between a legal exercise and an illegal usurpation of authority. The success of it would require not merely a factious majority in the legislature, but the concurrence of the courts of justice and of the body of the people. If the judges were not embarked in a conspiracy with the legislature, they would pronounce the resolutions of such a majority to be contrary to the supreme law of the land, unconstitutional, and void. If the people were not tainted with the spirit of their State representatives, they, as the natural guardians of the Constitution, would throw their weight into the national scale and give it a decided preponderancy in the contest. - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #16
.
Should be PLAIN FOR ALL TO SEE. THE MUNICIPALITIES AND STATES PASSING THESE ARMS CONTROL LAWS ARE REPUGNANT!
.
"To the second that is, to the pretended establishment of the common and state law by the Constitution, I answer, that they are expressly made subject "to such alterations and provisions as the legislature shall from time to time make concerning the same." They are therefore at any moment liable to repeal by the ordinary legislative power, and of course have no constitutional sanction. The only use of the declaration was to recognize the ancient law and to remove doubts which might have been occasioned by the Revolution. This consequently can be considered as no part of a declaration of rights, which under our constitutions must be intended as limitations of the power of the government itself." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #84
.
That we may form a correct judgment on this subject, it will be proper to review the several powers conferred on the government of the Union; and that this may be the more conveniently done they may be reduced into different classes as they relate to the following different objects...5. Restraint of the States from certain injurious acts...
.
...With what color of propriety could the force necessary for defense be limited by those who cannot limit the force of offense?...
.
...The batteries most capable of repelling foreign enterprises on our safety, are happily such as can NEVER BE TURNED BY A PERFIDIOUS GOVERNMENT AGAINST OUR LIBERTIES...
.
...How could a readiness for war in time of peace be safely prohibited, unless we could prohibit, in like manner, the preparations and establishments of every hostile nation? The means of security can only be regulated by the means and the danger of attack. They will, in fact, be ever determined by these rules, and by no others. It is in vain to oppose constitutional barriers to the impulse of self-preservation. It is worse than in vain; because it plants in the Constitution itself necessary usurpations of power, every precedent of which is a germ of unnecessary and multiplied repetitions... - James Madison, Federalist No. 41
.
Think the Lord and Our Founders had it Right.
.
Biblical Quotes on Arms