[mrocka]

Hi everyone. This is my first of hopefully many posts. I’m excited to be part of what I’ve already seen to be treasure trove of knowledge here.

Anyway, I’m having a discussion with someone claiming that Shay’s Rebellion is the foundation for the Second Amendment, specifically that the rebellion shows that the founders meant that only people who were militiamen should own firearms. I’ve found plenty of quotes from founding fathers stating that the term “militia” meant all citizens.

Specifically, I’d like to know (since I’m brand new and haven’t been able to listen to even a small fraction of the audio lectures) if any of the material here on Liberty Classroom covers Shay’s rebellion. I’d also be interested in any other audio that covers the rebellion with regards to the Second Amendment.

Audio is best for me because I spend a LOT of time in the car.

Thanks for any advice!

[mrocka]

For anyone willing to lend a hand, I found a link that pretty much sums up my opponent’s side of the argument.

http://www.examiner.com/article/the-original-intent-of-the-2nd-amendment-was-not-to-facilitate-citizen-rebellion

[gutzmank]

Shays’ Rebellion is described in both the constitutional history and the American history survey course. However, this assertion–of which I had never heard until now–isn’t mentioned. There’s simply no evidence for it in, for example, the writings of James Madison (subject of my last book), and abundant evidence that the concern was that all men be armed so that they could offset a potential tyrannous Federal Government.

Your interlocutor perhaps isn’t aware that in the western counties of Massachusetts, essentially the whole communities–including county militia colonels–participated in the Rebellion.

[Author]

Posts