Lessons learned...

   The lessons learned from the British having disarmed the people of Boston. And from the State of Massachusetts disarming those that had participated in Shay's Rebellion, for a period of three years. Are what had prompted the DEMAND that the individual "right of the people to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed" be Constitutionally secured.

   The new federal government had already been delegated limited authority and power over the "militia" in the original Constitution. The reason for the insertion of the "Declaratory clause" in Amendment II: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state". Is due to the fact that that is the only aspect concerning the right to bear arms the federal government had anything to do with; the "common defense".

   The insertion of the "Restrictive clause": "the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall NOT be infringed." Was intended to remove all doubt that the authority and power that had already been delegated. Extended in any way, shape or form over the preexisting right of We The People to keep and bear our own personal arms for Self-Defense.

   This is made clear by one of the most famous Chief Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court here:

   “Also, the conditions and circumstances of the period require a finding that while the stated purpose of the right to arms was to secure a well-regulated militia, the right to self-defense was assumed by the Framers.”–Chief Justice Marshall, U.S. Supreme Court. [As quoted in Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243, 251 (1846); State v. Dawson, 272 N.C. 535, 159 S.E.2d 1, 9 (1968).]

   As well as by Mr. Alexander Hamilton here:

   “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.

   The actual facts cannot be disputed, regardless of how many people don't like it. Those are the FACTS, and those facts are here to stay.