All right, folks, welcome back to Guns and Gadgets. Today we’re going to break down Federalist number 23 written by Alexander Hamilton, and this one is a cornerstone. Because Hamilton is tackling a question that never ever goes away. How much power must the national government have to protect the nation without becoming the very danger that it claims to defend us from? And it’s a question that many of us have been asking ourselves for a long time. And we’re going to do this the right way, guys. Let’s talk about what Hamilton was responding to, what the core argument actually is, why Federalist 23 is about national survival, where the limits come from and where they don’t, and how this ties directly to the Second Amendment and to the militia concept, and why an armed citizenry matters when government power expands for safety.

Federalist 23 is part of a run that Hamilton is building on. It’s an argument that the United States, under the Articles of Confederation, was too weak to survive in a world of hostile nations, shifting alliances and constant threats. And under the Articles, the central government was basically a referee with no whistle, and it definitely had no ability to enforce anything. It could, like I said a few times in a few papers here, could request money from the states, but it couldn’t compel it. It could recommend action, couldn’t guarantee it, and national defense depends on state compliance.

Now, Hamilton’s message was blunt, that the government cannot defend the people, and it’s not a real government if it can’t do that. It’s a fragile arrangement, awaiting to be broken by the first serious threat. He’s not just talking about war and abstract, he’s talking about foreign adversaries, border pressures, naval threats, European great power politics at the time. And the reality of that, danger doesn’t send you a calendar invite, right? It just shows up on your doorstep. Hamilton’s central claim was simple, but it’s the kind of claim that changes everything. If the Constitution, which was proposed at the time, had to be ratified, this is what these papers were trying to convince Americans to do.

But if the Constitution assigns the federal government responsibility for common defense, well then the federal government must have adequate power to accomplish that defense. And Hamilton goes further. He argues that the power must be commensurate with the end, meaning the means must be sufficient for the mission. He’s saying you can’t just tell the national government to defend the country, and then tie its hands so tightly that it can’t actually do that. Now, you should hear the warning bells immediately, because that logic can be used responsibly, or it can be abused. So let’s try to separate what Hamilton’s trying to justify from what modern government tries to do with that kind of reasoning.

Now, Hamilton lays out what key tasks the Union must be able to handle. Number one, common defense, which is protecting us, all of America, against foreign attacks. Two, preservation of public peace, which is internal stability, like think insurrections or rebellions or violence. Three, regulation of commerce with other nations, that’s trade security, naval realities and economic survival, money. Four, foreign affairs, international relations, too. That’s treaties, alliances, diplomacy backed by credible power. We can actually do something if we say we’re going to do it. And Federalist 23 is especially focused on the first two, external threats and internal threats.

And here’s where things get relevant to the Second Amendment, which we all know and love, which is why we’re here. Because the more internal threats become the justification, the easier it is for a government to say, look, we need some more centralized power for safety. Sound familiar? We’re dealing with it in 2026, and Alexander Hamilton was talking about this in 1787. Now, Hamilton argues that because dangers are unpredictable, it’s impossible to precisely limit the national government’s defense of power without risking some national survival. He’s telling us that you can’t pre-write a list of every future threat.

You can’t pre-limit every future defensive tool because your enemies are not obligated to operate inside of your preferred constraints. So he concludes that the national government must have broad capacity to respond to threats. Now, let’s pause there for a second because this is where people sometimes get frustrated with Hamilton. He’s not saying that the government should have infinite power over everything. You often hear people say that about Alexander Hamilton. He’s not. He’s saying that in the domain of national defense, you can’t set weak artificial caps that make defense impossible. But the question becomes what prevents defense from becoming a blank check? And that is where the Second Amendment logic becomes crucial because Hamilton knows that the anti-federalists and skeptics are terrified of one thing, a permanent, powerful national government with a standing army that can be used against we the people.

And historically, that fear is not paranoia. It’s been their experience. They had empires and monarchies and centralized rulers at the time, and they don’t just fight foreign wars. They often use force internally to control their populations. Hamilton’s answer is basically, look, you can’t wish away threats and you can’t defend a nation with paper promises. And if defense is required, the government must have the real capability of doing it. And a check on an abuse could come from constitutional structure and the people’s oversight. Now, this is where we bring the Second Amendment connection into this in a serious way, because Hamilton’s logic says that the federal government needs power for defense.

And the founding era, American logic also says that people must retain power as well, or defense becomes domination. And that’s the balancing act that the founders wrestled with constantly. Necessary national defense, but not a national supremacy over the people. So here’s the simplest pro to a takeaway on this. Federalist 23 is the argument for why government must be capable of defense. And the Second Amendment is one of the arguments for why the people must be capable of defense as well. If you keep one side strong, say government power, then you get one you get a one way ratchet like more centralized authority and more enforcement and more bureaucracy and more safety jurisdictions and less liberty.

Hamilton’s building the whole national power side of the equation there. The Bill of Rights, especially the Second Amendment, reinforces the people’s power side. So when we talk about common defense, we need to remember that defense is not just the government protecting us. Defense includes we the people being able to protect ourselves. And the militia concept at the founding was fundamentally tied to an armed populace. Some quick clarity for modern viewers here. When founders talk militia, they’re not talking about state run professional clubs. They’re talking about the body of the people, the citizens, all of them capable of bearing arms whenever they needed to.

And that is the bridge between Federalist defense theories and Second Amendment theories. And Federalist 23 connects directly to the Constitution’s enumerated powers, especially like rising and supporting armies or providing and maintaining a navy or calling forth the militia, organizing, arming and disciplining the militia. This matters because Hamilton is justifying the necessity of those powers. But here’s a two-way relevant tension. If the government can organize and arm the militia as a constitutional concept, it also implies that the militia exists and that the people are expected to be capable, to be armed, and arms are relevant to civic defense.

And disarmament undermines the very structure that the founders assumed. So when modern government actors treat armed citizens as the problem, rather than part of the security architecture, they’re colliding headfirst with the founding model. You should send this to a lot of your anti-gun friends, because they don’t understand how this country was designed, the way it’s supposed to run, and it doesn’t matter what their feelings are. But now let’s make this the real world here. Like Hamilton’s logic, the power must be commensurate with the end, gets reused constantly. Today we hear we must fight violence, we must protect public safety, we must secure the homeland, we must stop extremism.

And those goals are used to justify surveillance expansion, censorship pressure, administrative enforcements, restrictions on our rights, and increasingly pressure against us armed citizens. So here’s the problem. Hamilton’s argument assumes the goal is legitimate defense against real threats. But modern government often redefines threat to include ordinary citizens, or political dissent, or lawful gun ownership, or carrying firearms, or certain kinds of magazines, or certain things that are on your rifle, just cosmetic stuff, or training, or community preparedness. That’s not common defense when they do that. That’s domestic control wearing a defense costume. And Hamilton’s warning unintentionally becomes a tool if citizens don’t insist on limits.

And this is where the Second Amendment becomes the hard stop. A free state depends on a people that cannot be reduced to subjects. And Hamilton fears weakness invites aggression. He believes that a disunited or underpowered America will become prey politically, economically, and militarily. And that’s why he wants credible national defense capacity, and a centralized coordination, and reliable funding and readiness. And he’s right on the historical lesson. Like nations that can’t defend themselves don’t stay sovereign for long. But here’s what gun owners have to notice here. The founding generation did not solve defense by making government all-powerful.

They sought a layered defense model. You get federal capacity, state capacity, local capacity, and, crucially, popular capacity, which is the armed citizenry. The most important of all. That’s why the security of a free state is tied to the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Because if your only defense is government, then your freedom depends on government’s mood. That’s not liberty, that’s permission. And Hamilton implies that because war and threats are unpredictable, you can’t specify strict numerical or procedural limits on defensive power ahead of that time. So that sounds like no limits on troops, or resources, or preparation.

But now if you’re a gun owner and you’ve watched government emergency powers explode over the last several decades, like me, you immediately see the danger. If defense becomes the justification for permanent expansion, then it never contracts. Meaning it always will stay big, it’ll never, ever get smaller. So how do the founders intend to constrain that? Not with a single magic sentence, but by building the whole system of enumerated powers, of separation of powers, checks and balances, elections, federalism, and the Bill of Rights. And within the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment plays a unique role, as we know.

It’s not merely about hunting. It’s about ensuring the people are not structurally helpless. Hamilton’s saying that the federal government is responsible for protecting the nation, but it needs the power to do that. The founding error counterweight says that if the federal government has power, the people must retain power too, so that the government never becomes a threat. And the Second Amendment is one of the clearest expressions of that counterweight. Guys, you should ask yourself, is this true common defense or political convenience, when you hear things like, we need to limit the rights for safety, or we need to restrict ownership for defense, or we need to reduce the public’s ability to resist.

Those are the things you should ask yourself. Is this for the common defense, or is this just because you’re trying to restrict us? And that’s exactly why the founders insisted that we the people keep our own capacity. Now, if you love America, you love your coffee strong, you’ve got to check out Blackout Coffee. They’re supporting this entire educational series. Small batch, premium roasted, premium coffee roasted here in Florida. Well, down there in Florida, I’m in Tennessee. But our company loves Freedom Guys and Gals. Every bag is roasted fresh. You’re never getting stuff that’s been sitting on shelves.

You get your order within two to three days of your order because we roast it immediately. We don’t have stuff just laying around. We roast seven days a week. And our stuff is bold. It’s rich. It’s flavorful. If you don’t like coffee, we have teas and hot chocolates. We have shirts, hats, mugs, all kinds of stuff. Check out blackoutcoffee.com slash gng and use code GNG10. Save some money. I appreciate y’all. Guys, Federalist 23 is not anti-liberty. And it’s not a pro-tyranny manifesto either. It’s Hamilton arguing that a nation must be able to defend itself. But the Founders didn’t stop there.

They also recognized that the oldest truth in political history is, a government strong enough to protect you is also strong enough to oppress you. Unless it is restrained. And that’s why the Bill of Rights exists. That’s why the Second Amendment matters. And that’s why common defense cannot be used as an excuse to disarm the very people the Constitution was written to secure. If you got value out of this breakdown, please hit the subscribe button and let other people know about this series. Share this with somebody who thinks that the Federalist Papers don’t matter anymore.

Share this with people who never even heard of the Federalist Papers. They absolutely matter. Maybe more now than they ever did. Stay safe, stay free, stay armed. I love you. God bless you. I’ll see you in the next one. Take care. [tr:trw].

See more of Guns & Gadgets 2nd Amendment News on their Public Channel and the MPN Guns & Gadgets 2nd Amendment News channel.