Does libertarianism just shift tyranny from the government to individuals?

ApplePion

BobG, I really don't understand your point. The Constitution said that an important reason for the right to bear arms is to arm militias, and it also says that one of the powers of the Congress is to call out the militia to put down "Insurrections". So it seems to me undeniable that the Second Amendment was there to prevent rebellions against the federal governmement such as the Civil War, etc...not to facilitate those things.

mheslep

ApplePion - You are drawing an unsupportable connection between the 2nd amendment and the Constitution's Article 1 militia reference; the connection does not exist. Your argument is akin to correctly pointing out that the Constitution calls for a federally supported postal service, and correctly pointing out that the Constitution grants power for federally supported armed forces, therefore (incorrectly) assuming the Constitution demands the postal service should be run by the armed forces.

BobG

Plus, it's debatable whether or not the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to preserve the states' ability to have their own militia.

The wording of the 2nd Amendment is very vague - intentionally so.

There were many concerned with the states having their own militia and a provision in the Bill of Rights preventing the federal government from disbanding them. There were also many that believed in the individuals' right to own firearms and didn't want any government, whether federal or state, infringing those rights. Add to this that many states couldn't actually afford to arm an army and required militia members to bring their own guns and ammunition.

The vague wording aided passage in that all camps could see what they wanted to see in the Amendment by putting emphasis on different parts of the amendment.

Personally, I do think the state militia part was the most important part, as the revolutionaries had prior experiences with the British attempting to seize the heavy cannons of state militias (that's what Paul Revere's ride was about).

But the Bill of Rights was primarily intended to provide protection from the federal government. An Amendment intended to put down something like the Civil War would have been out of place there.

ApplePion

Both Article 1 and the Second Amendment refer to the same thing--militias. You are claiming that equating militias to militias is like equating the Post Office to the Armed Forces.

I somewhat agree with you on that, but it is somewhat irrelevant--Article 1 clearly gave the federal government power yo put down "Insurrection"

No matter how you cut it, the Constitution did not support the South suceding or anyone otherthrowing the government.

You might think it would be out of place, but it is in there!!!!

The part of the Constitution protecting the Federal Government from armed "Insurrection" was no amendment. It was part of the full intent of the Founders.

While people now tink of the Bill of Rights as being a key part of the Constitution, they were not even originally intended to be in there --they were put in later to amend the Constitution to gather political support from some dissenters.

Char. Limit

Pro-tip: Clever use of Quote tags can make it so you don't need to clutter up a thread with four posts in a row. I would suggest multi-quote, but it seems like you made four posts quoting different parts of the same post.

mheslep

The issue at hand is use and control of militias. A1 provides for nationalizing the militias for suppression insurrection. You insist on taking this to mean the only purpose of militias is to await nationalization by the federal government, as if the federal government's power to tax meant the only purpose of citizens was to pay taxes (and serve in nationalized militias).

mheslep

Otherwise there would be no US or Constitution.