Here is a highly suppressed Senate Report on the RKBA from 1982. It has several State Court cases on the 2nd Amendment BEFORE the Civil War.
http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/87senrpt.pdf
19. *
Nunn v. State
, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846).
“’The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed.’ The right of the whole people,
old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every
description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or
broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing
up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State.”
****
***”The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major
commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected
is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner.”
NOW YOU see why this is suppressed today.
Venezuela never had strong gun rights. My understanding for the last century, it allowed some hunters or professionals to be armed, but with strict registrations. The Chavistas came along and simply turned the existing screws a little bit tighter, that’s all.
Latin countries all have a very strong dictatorial, “caudillo” culture.
The reverse experiment is about to be run in Brazil. Its new president is VERY pro-citizen-gun-ownership.
this right was not "designed", it's natural. defending oneself against anyone and anything is a natural right. just like breathing. the Second Amendment affirms that right. The 2A says the government cannot take this right away. I've heard many pro-2A people say the 2a grants the right. wrong.
if one believes the government can legitimately grant rights, than one concedes the government can take rights away.