On Sat, 29 Nov 2008, Louis Kontos wrote:
> The Second Amendment, in my reading, has nothing to do with the weird
> (in a bad way) idea of people protecting themselves against their own
> government.
It certainly did in its origins. Remember the whole purpose of the bill of rights was to sell the idea of a central government to people who would otherwise be disposed against it, preferring that their states should remain autonomous as they had always pretty much been. They were very afraid that this new central government might turn out to be as oppressive as the British government they had just overthrown. Many of them very much wanted to make sure that they would be able to overthrow this one if necessary. And the largely guerilla-tactic war they had just fought in was their model.
And mind you, this line of argument holds even more if you cleave to the exclusively "militia" reading of the 2nd amendment normally favored by gun control advocates. The whole reason there were militias, and they were not merged into a national army was precisely because the states feared the central government having too much autonomous military power.
I'm not saying I like this origin. And lord knows I don't want to get into the sticky pit of 2nd Amendment jurisprudence and a discussion of how sentiments from the 18th century relate to (or ought to relate to) sentiments today. But FBOW your blanket statement that the 2nd Amendment never had anything to do with people protecting themselves against their own central government just seems flat wrong. Do you have a novel new way of making that argument?
Michael