“I wasn’t trying to summarize the causes of the war. I was trying to illustrate one example of why our Founders ratified the Second Amendment. It was important for future generations to have the equipment readily at hand to oppose tyranny.” [William Tell, post 126]
It’s an inversion of logic (not to say the timeline) to post conditions, events, and ideas, imply “this caused that” - and then insist those conditions, events, and ideas weren’t the causes of the split, and the war.
If we don’t know the causes, clinging to post-AWI propaganda will not bring us a better understanding of how our cultural foundations and legal structures were imagined, derived, put into effect, and came to be administered. This in turn will hamper us as we frame the requisite arguments against modern attempts to impose gun control.
I concede that a large percentage of us Americans prefer the postwar propaganda (a narrative long learned by rote in grade schools) to accurate historical renditions & interpretations.
1: A tyrannical central government occupied Boston, declared martial law, and disarmed the residents.
2: That same government sent army Regulars to confiscate privately owned arms including cannons from the residents outside of Boston.
3: Those outside of Boston who wished to relieve the residents of Boston from the occupation by that central government arranged to take by force the cannon from Fort Ticonderoga and used those arms to coerce the central government into ceasing their occupation.
4: The Founders of our nation implemented the Second Amendment, at least in part, to insure that future depredations by a central government could be met by force without the necessity of stealing arms from that central government prior to taking effective action.
This is what I intended to communicate. Do you see inaccuracies in the 4 statements above?