That's right, but the Civil War was about States not, as Jason argued, about individuals. And since the Civil War is an example (hopefully the last example) of a Constitutional question being decided with military conflict, it is important to point out what the decision was: The Constitution cannot be interpreted as supporting current or future insurgency by either States or individuals. So, if the Civil War has any relevance on the Second Amendment, it can't be in favor of private gun ownership.
On Oct 27, 12:42 pm, CrossBow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Oh, but the states did kick up a fuss and raise a citizen militia that > separated families from 1861-1865... a bloody altercation called the > Civil War. Post Constitution by 74 years. Stick that in the > equation. > > Homeland security evolution will raise even more questions. The right > to bear firearms can be inspected from that direction and the civil > questions become alien defense (pardon the clumsiness of all syntax). > > I also agree with Liz if anyone endangers me and mine I will hurt you > anyway humanly possible nasty way. Guns help me with the distance > problem and lack of body strength. > > <<The States were not interested in supporting civilian > insurgency>>> > > On Oct 25, 10:21 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 -- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
