On 8/8/2017 6:35 AM, james graham wrote:
> And just as importantly, isn't it the very reason that the "Founding Fathers"
in their wisdom included the Second Amendment into the United States
Constitution's? So that the "People" would have the means to fight the use of
the Police and the Army of the "Legitimate Government" was used by that
government to suppress the people. Those founding fathers were NOT concerned
with hunting, nor were they concerned with "personal protection" against
criminals. They were concerned about "police powers" of their own government.
This just an appalling rewrite of US history. The Founders wanted a
well trained militia which, in the absence of a significant standing
Army, could be called up to (1) defend the government from internal
dissent, (2) deal with restless Native Americans, and (3) support the
small standing Army if it was engaged in a war with a foreign power.
Shays Rebellion in 1786/1787 in Massachusetts which was put down by a
force paid for by Boston merchants and led by Gen. Lincoln of
Revolutionary War fame, provided impetus to the efforts to replace the
Articles of Confederation with the Constitution. In addition to helping
draft the Constitution and creating a strong Federal Government,
Washington used those powers, when as President, he assumed the role of
Commander in Chief to lead the largest army he every led to suppress the
Whiskey Rebellion in Pennsylvania in 1794. That Army was a militia
force, made possible by Constitution and called into Federal service by
President Washington. As he led it westward, he wrote in the Gazette of
the United States, 25 September 1794, warning locals "not to abet, aid,
or comfort the Insurgents aforesaid, as they will answer the contrary at
their peril." This use of the militia demonstrates that it existed to
protect the Federal Government, not to oppose it. The Second Amendment,
ratified 3 years earlier, helped provide the militia used to suppress
the rebellion.
> By the way, they expressly said so in their explanations for requiring
those things in the "Bill of Rights" amendments in order for the Constitution
to be adopted in the first place. Without them the Constitution would probably
never have been adopted in the first place.
Your sense of history could benefit from a linear sense of time. The
Amendments were written, passed and ratified after the Constitution was
adopted. There is no serious scholar who sees any prior agreement to
enact them as part of the ratification process. In fact, the proposed
amendments were not all passed by Congress nor ratified by the States.
Of the 12 sent to the states in 1789, the eleventh was ratified in
1992. You can looking it up.
> At that time the "people" had some very good memories of the recent use of
"Police Powers" by the "legitimate" government that ruled them.
BTW, the point of the Revolution was that the government was not
legitimate,the adoption of the Constitution was because of the failure
of the Articles of Confederation to provide a strong central government,
and use of force by Washington presaged Lincoln's use of force to
suppress the rebellion by many in the Southern States just as succeeding
Presidents have used force to suppress racists, terrorists from the
right and left, as well as religious extremists of various sorts.
Rest of post
--
Marc Asch <email obscured>
34 North Oaks Road
North Oaks, MN 55127
612-386-7800
"Democracy is not a spectator sport."
Craig S. Wilson