Another instance of intellectual dishonesty in the recent 9th Circuit decision interpreting the Second Amendment. At one point, Reinhardt purports to demonstrate that some of the Founders "explicitly disparaged the idea of creating an individual right to personal arms." He then provides one quote (!):

For instance, in a highly influential treatise, John Adams ridiculed the concept of such a right, asserting that the general availability of arms would "demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government." 3 John Adams, A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States 475 (1787-1788)

But let's look at what the full quote from Adams actually says:

To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws.

In other words, Adams was not arguing against an individual right to have arms. In fact, as the highlighted text above shows, he supported allowing private citizens, at their individual discretion, to use arms in "private self-defense." What he was writing about here was the necessity of legal control over the militia -- in other words, he didn't want to have a bunch of vigilantes running around purporting to be a military.

I'm not sure how anyone can suggest that Adams opposed any individual right to have arms -- much less that this carefully edited quote was representative of the general attitude of the Founders.