Thanks for turning us on to that little gem, Pod. "Insurrection or rebellion" didn't necessarily mean an uprising of free citizens against government taxes, (like the Whiskey, Shay or Fries Rebellions). Most of the time it meant slave uprisings, which in many parts of the US are still an issue, although the definition of "slave" has now been extended to include others...
Follow Conservative doctrine far enough, all the way back to its sources, and it always leads you to the same sordid places. States' rights, small government, local control, Federalism, law'n'order, republican (as opposed to democratic) representation, restriction of the franchise; all are designed to make sure the local satrap (merchant, manufactuter, but mostly, plantation owner) and his pals have nothing to fear from the Gummint Man--or the average citizen. Its an essentially feudal ethos, ensuring that anyone capable of economically bullying his immediate neighbors has nothing to fear from those who might want to bully him. Big Jim owns the local diamond mine, so he gets to set the prices at the company store.
Magna Fucking Carta all over again.
Flame » in reply to Belonging to a militia used to be required by law
Why am I not surprised?
The whole thread (28 posts)
- The Second Amendment
- Your argumentdoesn't hold water.
- Hence forth and ever more, let it be known across the land . . .
- You've been asking for a timely discussion about guns. How do you expect that when you start with insults. n/t
- No . . .
- Regardless of the reason, and whether we like it or not,