In other words, it makes no more sense to take from the people the right to bear arms than it does for the government to accumulate monies beyond what is necessary to support its legitimate obligations. To him, either action would lead a government, tempted with ambition, to endanger the liberties of the people. Note his clear distinction between a standing army vs the right of the people to bear arms.To take from the people the right of bearing arms and put their weapons of defense in the hands of a standing army would be scarcely more dangerous to their liberties than to permit the Government to accumulate immense amounts of treasure beyond the supplies necessary to its legitimate wants. Such a treasure would doubtless be employed at some time, as it has been in other countries, when opportunity tempted ambition.
Jackson could say a lot in a short space.