 | | Re: Trying to understand
|
| This point has been debated here before. It turns on the intent of the authors. I can't cite the particular Paper, but the Federalist papers speak to this point. It also turns on the meaning of "well regulated" (and of Militia) which many hold not (...) (25 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Trying to understand
|
| (...) I'll clarify my point if it was a little murky: Frank stated the purpose of the 2nd amendment was for the populace to keep the government in check (or words to that effect). That may have have been in part what the 2nd amendment is about, but (...) (25 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Trying to understand
|
| (...) I'll again go back to what was written in the federalist papers. I plowed through them a few months back, so it's a fairly recent memory... I can't deny that there may have been other motives than the final check but that was the biggie, by a (...) (25 years ago, 18-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Trying to understand
|
| (...) There's also that "hostile foreign Powers" thing too, considering that the early United States simply didn't have the money to maintain a large standing army or navy, and wouldn't until the 1850s. Until the 1830s, invasion from Canada was a (...) (25 years ago, 18-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Trying to understand
|
| (...) Technological superiority would not necessarily guarantee victory in a "Red Dawn" type scenario - whether the aggressor were foreign or our own gov't. Afghanistan/Russia demonstrates that (Viet Nam also). If a people have the will to fight (...) (25 years ago, 19-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
