Aymette v. State, 21 Tenn. Reports 154 (1840)
cited in U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)
From the summery:
"The right of civilians in a free society to possess "military-
looking," or even actual military weapons, is essential if a
monopoly of force is not to reside in the hands of government,
where modern history shows the potential for far greater abuses
and crimes exists than are possible for any deranged individual.
Every major genocide in the twentieth century has been preceded
by laws which disarmed the eventual victims of their ability to
resist the progressive imposition of murderous tyranny. Once
granted a monopoly of force, government acquires power that cannot
be readily opposed or revoked. And, if government fails to act,
as in time of natural disaster or a riot, the ability to defend
against roving gangs or to deter looting requires a dependable,
versatile, and credible deterrent to whatever threat may appear,
and possibly even a means to obtain small game for survival.
Or, if government is too far away to act quickly, for instance
in remote rural areas, or miles from shore out to sea, people
faced with attack by packs of wild animals, human predators,
or hijacking pirates must be able to respond with all neccessary
force, in order to preserve their lives from harm.
Further, the Supreme Court has ruled that weapons having no
"reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of
a well regulated militia" may be taxed in interstate commerce,
clearly implying that weapons having such reasonable relationship
with the militia are those which the Second Amendment protects
the right of the people to keep and bear, moreso even than other
types of weapons. In other words, the arms protected by the
Second Amendment are those "such as are usually employed in
civilized warfare, and that constitute the ordinary military
equipment."
