Subnostr

That's a perspective I have not heard before.

Of course, it must be mentioned here that the Founders did not exactly intend a standing army, either. Instead of a professional army, a militia would be responsible for defense.

We've obviously departed a long way from that, and this departure certainly colors more recent discussions on the Second Amendment.

Marakesh 𓅦 1y ago

The libertarian in me saw from this article that a strong national was not needed to put down rebellions like Shays' Rebellion. George Washington and others overreacted (or more cynically, didn't let a good crisis go to waste):

"Shays’ Rebellion was eventually put down when a group of wealthy merchants in Boston pooled their resources and created their own militia to quell the uprising. "

https://www.gastongazette.com/story/opinion/columns/2017/02/06/mark-l-hopkins-second-amendment-and-shays-rebellion/22532517007/#:~:text=Shays%E2%80%99%20Rebellion%20was%20eventually%20put%20down%20when%20a%20group%20of%20wealthy%20merchants%20in%20Boston%20pooled%20their%20resources%20and%20created%20their%20own%20militia%20to%20quell%20the%20uprising.

See, the free market and #voluntarism took care of the problem. Government inevitably creates bigger problems than those it was created to solve...

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

MichaelJ 1y ago

Of course, without constitutional protection for the citizens to arm themselves, there are fewer guarantees such locally-organized militias would be possible at all.

FreedomTech 1y ago

The right to defend yourself from criminals and from tyrannical government is an unalienable right.

An unalienable right is one that cannot be taken from you, nor even by a 100% majority vote.

The Constitution doesn't grant you the right to keep and bear arms. The 2nd Amendment explicitly reminds the government that it cannot and shall not infringr on the right to self defense against oppression or threat to life or limb.

Marakesh 𓅦 1y ago

The Second Amendment starts out by referencing "a well-regulated militia." Would an armed uprising by the people constitute "a well-regulated militia"? If not, the argument of the Left seems to be that the Second Amendment does not apply to those wanting to take up arms against the government. The militia is to be well-regulated and organized, with it's leaders appointed by the government, and fighting on behalf of the government.

a source familiar with the matter 1y ago

In the context of the 1780s-90s:

Militia is the whole body of free people who could be called up for military service

Well regulated means something closer to well-armed than "subject to lots of regulations"

And, the First War of Secession (in the 1770s) certainly suggests that militias might oppose the government

Marakesh 𓅦 1y ago

Yes, but they changed all that with the Constitution and the Militia Act. Governors were the comanders-in-chief of state militias and the President over them all (it may not have started out that way but the laws were changed over time to make it that way today). I may be wrong, but I don't think Founders were contemplating independent militias but rather rather those under state government control, and ultimately under federal control. I'd be happy to be shown that's wrong.

I think nostr:nprofile1qqsym07t03wahqjfl8r7hrppuqvlpralklk9mm25pzmpgkgtawx3d9gpr4mhxue69uhkummnw3ezucnfw33k76twv4ezuum0vd5kzmp0qyg8wumn8ghj7mn0wd68ytnddakj7qg4waehxw309ahx7um5wghx77r5wghxgetk9uzy9auh is right on natural law grounds, the natural right to self defense, but I think if you try to argue on Constitutional grounds it's like going to court against the government, when they are a party to the complaint and also the judge (how is that fair or just?). You'll only win if they allow it.

Marakesh 𓅦 1y ago

I also see from this editorial that things were pretty bad even under the Articles of Confederation government. Granted, the boys in Shay's Rebellion were protesting the Massachusetts state government, however, the existence of Congress gave Washington and others the instrument by which to create the more powerful federal Constitution...

Marakesh 𓅦 1y ago

Furthermore, Congress instituted a military draft, once the Constitution was adopted, which forced men to take up arms on behalf of the government, perhaps even against their will. A draft is slavery.

"In the early 1790s, a second major rebellion began in Western Pennsylvania. It was called the Whiskey Rebellion and, again, was a revolt against taxes. Thus, the Second Amendment was written and signed into law in the shadow of these two major citizens’ rebellions.

"The U.S. Congress reacted to this second major rebellion by passing “The Militia Act” which gave teeth to the Second Amendment by requiring all military-age “free adults” to stand for service to “enforce the laws of the Union, thereby insuring “domestic tranquility.” President Washington himself gave orders to form a militia of 13,000 men to put down the Whiskey Rebellion."

https://www.gastongazette.com/story/opinion/columns/2017/02/06/mark-l-hopkins-second-amendment-and-shays-rebellion/22532517007/#:~:text=The%20U.S.%20Congress,down%20the%20Whiskey%20Rebellion.