Quote:
Originally Posted by Iriemon  Realizing I'm opening a can of worms, I'm not sure it is clear that there was a consensus view that the 2dA was designed to provide for the capability of an insurgency against the government, and I seem to recall reading things to the contrary. The language in the 2A speaks about the militia being necessary to the security of a free state, which most logically is read that the militia is necessary for the defense of the nation. You could read it to mean that the militia is necessary to keep the people free from Govt tyrrany (though the language speaks of free state, not free people). Some viewed the militia as being necessary to maintain order in the nation, such as when Washington called out the militia to put down an insurgency (the Whiskey rebellion) not fight for it. |
Yeah, it is a can of worms and a portion of the debate that it's best to tread lightly as it's definitely hard to find a non-biased source. One of my favorite sources,
The Straight Dope, had this to say.
Quote:
|
However odd it strikes us today, the framers regarded private gun ownership as one of the pillars of their liberty. They had recently defeated one of the most powerful nations in the world using an army that in the early going had consisted of amateur soldiers using their own weapons. They considered these citizen militias vastly preferable to standing armies, which in their experience had been instruments of oppression. They also had no professional police force upon which to depend for defense of their lives and property. It seemed natural to them that ordinary folk should have the right to own guns.
|