“So, I don't think the Second Amendment can correctly be interpreted as giving individual citizens the right to engage in insurgency against the government.” – Aaron
That is my interpretation too Aaron. It is the Declaration of Independence that gives us the right of insurgence. On Oct 25, 8:21 am, Aaron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > That's an interesting argument, but I don't think it quite holds up to > scrutiny. On a practical level, the modern military has little, if > anything, to fear from random citizens with handguns. On a legal or > historical level, I don't think that's what the Second Amendment was > about anyway. The States were not interested in supporting civilian > insurgency. In fact if I remember correctly, (I'm reaching way back > to High School here) it was an armed uprising in New England that > scared the bejesus out of the founding generation and motivated them > to abandoned the Articles of Confederation for the much stronger > Constitution. > > The debate over how best to defend the new nation was contentious, but > I don't think militias were ever seriously contemplated as fighting > off a national army. Rather, it was thought that the nation would be > best served by a well-regulated militia under some federal control, > but maintained by the States. In other words, if the militias > performed well, there would be no need of a large standing army. > > From the every beginning, the Constitution has given the President and > Congress the right to call up the State militias. The Constitution > even says (I think) that if the national army is unable to enforce > federal law, the State militias are responsible for doing it! So, the > issue was how best to defend the nation and its laws. > > So, I don't think the Second Amendment can correctly be interpreted as > giving individual citizens the right to engage in insurgency against > the government. Rather, the Second Amendment is the result of a > debate about how best to protect the nation *against* such threats. > > Aaron > > On Oct 24, 11:22 pm, "Jason (Memphis)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > > The National Guard is national. Isn't it pretty much controlled by > > the national government even are used to fight foreign wars. I think > > the argument for protection from a dictatorship of a national > > government still applies.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memphis Freethought Alliance" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/memphisfreethoughtalliance?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
