In his latest Guns & Gadgets video, Jared Yanis starts with a challenge that sounds simple but carries a sharp edge: if the Second Amendment protects “the right of the people” to keep arms, what were the Founders saying before the Bill of Rights even existed?
Jared’s point is that a lot of modern arguments treat the Second Amendment like it appeared out of nowhere in 1791. He says that’s backwards, because the thinking that later became the Second Amendment was already baked into the Founders’ public explanations while they were trying to “sell” the Constitution in 1787 and 1788.
He frames it like a receipt-check. People argue the meaning all day, Jared says, but very few sit down, open the Federalist Papers, and look at what Hamilton and Madison were actually writing when the nation was still deciding what kind of government it wanted.
That approach matters because it shifts the fight away from vibes and toward original assumptions.
Even if someone ends up disagreeing with Jared’s conclusions, it’s harder to wave away a debate when the debate is grounded in the Founders’ own marketing pitch for the Constitution.
The Federalist Papers Didn’t Name The Second Amendment – But They Built Its Foundation
Jared makes a basic timeline point up front: the Federalist Papers don’t mention the Second Amendment by name because they were written before the Bill of Rights was ratified.
But he argues they repeatedly discuss the exact concepts that later became the Second Amendment’s backbone.
He lists them in plain language: a citizen militia drawn from the people, deep suspicion of standing armies, the idea that a free people must be armed and capable, and the reality that tyranny becomes harder when government knows the population isn’t helpless.
That’s his overall thesis: the Second Amendment wasn’t a random addition. In Jared’s telling, it was the “final lock on the door” after the Founders had already spent years talking about why civilian arms mattered.
And honestly, this is the part a lot of casual readers miss. Many people quote the amendment itself and stop there, like one sentence is supposed to contain the whole political atmosphere of the 1780s. Jared’s argument is that the atmosphere is the story, and the Federalist Papers are where you can see it.
Hamilton’s “People At Large” And The Militia That Isn’t A Government Club
Jared’s first big “receipt” is Federalist No. 29, written by Alexander Hamilton. He tells viewers that if there’s one Federalist Paper gun owners should know on this topic, it’s that one.
Then Jared reads the line he says lands “like a hammer”: Hamilton wrote that “little more can reasonably be aimed at… than to have them properly armed and equipped,” referring to “the people at large.”
Jared slows down and emphasizes the phrase, because he wants the viewer to notice the target isn’t a small state-run unit – it’s the broader public.
In Jared’s reading, Hamilton’s baseline expectation wasn’t that only official troops would have arms. The expectation was the opposite: the people should be armed, equipped, and trained enough to be functional if called.
Jared adds another Hamilton detail from Federalist 29: Hamilton says they’d need to assemble the militia “once or twice” a year so it doesn’t become a dead letter. Jared’s takeaway is that the militia can’t be “in name only.” It has to be a real body of people who can show up.
He also highlights Hamilton’s warning about standing armies. Jared quotes Hamilton’s view that if standing armies are dangerous to liberty, then you need an “efficacious” power over the militia to remove the temptation and pretext for a permanent army.
Jared’s point here is not subtle: if you want to avoid the “solution” of a standing army, you keep the militia system healthy. And if the militia is the people, then the people being armed is a feature, not a bug.
From a modern perspective, this is where the argument gets uncomfortable for a lot of people. Many Americans like the idea of “rights” in the abstract, but get nervous when those rights imply the public has leverage. Jared is saying the leverage was the design.
Madison’s “Advantage Of Being Armed” As A Political Feature
Jared then turns to Federalist No. 46, written by James Madison, calling it one of the most cited papers in modern Second Amendment debate.
He frames Madison’s essay as a response to a fear that still exists today: what if the new federal government grows ambitious and oppressive?
Then Jared reads the line he thinks every American should memorize: Madison wrote, “Besides the advantage of being armed, which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation.”
Jared stresses Madison isn’t talking about sport. He says Madison is talking about structure—an advantage that makes tyranny harder to impose.
He adds that Madison pairs armed citizens with other layers of resistance: state governments, local attachment, and militia officers appointed through those governments. Jared describes Madison’s picture as “layered resistance,” meaning multiple barriers stand between the people and a central government that gets too bold.
Jared also points out Madison contrasting America with Europe, where governments were more afraid to trust ordinary people with arms. Jared sums that up in a blunt phrase: tyrants disarm first.
He notes Madison goes even further, arguing that if European people had the same advantages as Americans – arms plus local governments – tyranny would collapse. Jared calls that deterrence logic: the goal isn’t to start violence, it’s to make oppression less tempting in the first place.
I think that distinction is worth sitting with. Jared is making a deterrence argument, not a chaos argument. Whether you buy it or not, deterrence is a real concept across society. We don’t put locks on doors because we expect a fight; we do it to reduce the chance of one.
Hamilton On Self-Defense As A Right Above Government
Next Jared jumps to Federalist No. 28, also by Hamilton, and he calls it the “hard question” paper. What happens if representatives betray the people?
Jared quotes Hamilton’s answer: if that happens, there’s “no resource left” except “the exertion of that original right of self-defense.” Jared underlines what he thinks is the key phrase: Hamilton says this right exists above government, “paramount to all positive forms of government.”
Jared translates “positive forms” into plain English: man-made systems – statutes, offices, bureaucracies, the machinery of the state. In other words, Hamilton is describing a level of human liberty that predates government and sits above it.
Jared also mentions Hamilton’s description of the nightmare scenario where citizens “rush tumultuously to arms” without system or coordination. Jared’s takeaway is that this is exactly why structural protections matter before society gets desperate.
And threaded through Jared’s entire reading is an assumption he keeps returning to: none of these essays make sense if the public is disarmed. The whole deterrence framework depends on citizens possessing the means to resist, at least in last-resort terms.
Standing Armies, A Founding Fear, And A Modern Blind Spot
Jared then widens the lens and says a huge part of the Second Amendment’s “why” is the Founders’ fear of standing armies. He points viewers to multiple essays – Federalist 8, 24, and 25 – where Hamilton repeatedly references standing armies as a danger to liberty.
Jared notes that Hamilton also cited state declarations of rights and language like “standing armies are dangerous to liberty,” including references to Pennsylvania’s Bill of Rights warning they shouldn’t be kept up in peacetime.
Then Jared draws the connection he wants the viewer to see: standing armies were seen as a temptation for power, so liberty needed counterweights – elections, separation of powers, federalism – and, in his reading, an armed populace capable of forming the militia.
This is one of those areas where modern Americans often assume the government is the default protector and the public is the default risk. Jared argues the Founders didn’t think that way. They treated concentrated power as the risk and built the system to frustrate it.
You don’t have to be a conspiracy-minded person to understand why they felt that way. They had just fought an empire. Of course they were skeptical of permanent forces and unchecked authority.
Why Hamilton Didn’t Want A Bill Of Rights – And Why We Got One Anyway
Jared finishes with a question he says people constantly ask: if Federalists believed in these rights, why did they resist the Bill of Rights at first?
He points to Federalist No. 84, where Hamilton argued the Constitution already limited federal power. Jared says Hamilton feared listing rights could be dangerous because it might imply the government had powers it didn’t actually have.
Jared quotes Hamilton’s question: why declare things “shall not be done” when there is no power to do them? He also notes Hamilton’s warning that written exceptions can become a “pretext” for usurpation.
Jared then says history answered the debate: Madison and others recognized Americans demanded explicit protections, so the Bill of Rights followed. In Jared’s view, the Federalist Papers show the climate and assumptions, and the Second Amendment later formalized them with the famous language: “shall not be infringed.”
He ends by arguing the Founders never talked like modern bureaucrats who treat carry zones, age carve-outs, and endlessly expanding “sensitive places” as normal.
Jared’s claim is that the Founders’ model wasn’t “permission from the state.” It was a citizenry born with rights, with government boxed in by design.
Whether you agree with Jared or not, his core message is hard to ignore: you can’t seriously argue about the Second Amendment if you refuse to read the thinking that led to it. The Founders didn’t write in memes. They wrote in arguments.
And Jared’s whole point is the arguments are still sitting there, in black and white, waiting for people to stop guessing and start reading.
Growing up in the Pacific Northwest, John developed a love for the great outdoors early on. With years of experience as a wilderness guide, he’s navigated rugged terrains and unpredictable weather patterns. John is also an avid hunter and fisherman who believes in sustainable living. His focus on practical survival skills, from building shelters to purifying water, reflects his passion for preparedness. When he’s not out in the wild, you can find him sharing his knowledge through writing, hoping to inspire others to embrace self-reliance.
