No government in American history has been more enthusiastic gun grabbers than the Confederates during the Civil War.
Are you granting the Confederate government’s sovereignty in that well-researched historical comparison of yours, or were they just being rebellious Americans?
If they were merely rebels as Lincoln told us they were, then those would in fact be U.S. gun laws you’re talking about. If they’re autonomous enough for comparison, then they’re not part of “American” (U.S.) history, they’d have one of there own. Unless by “American” you meant the Americas, but then your comparison fails with too many Central and South American countries to name.
Please tell more.
Thank you for you opinion. However, even if true, it is completely irrelevant to the issue of State secession. Whether the seceded States formed an absolute monarchy, or a representative republic, or even an intergalactic empire based on coupon clipping & network marketing, the form of government adopted by the departed States in no way affected the constitutionality of State secession from the union formed under the U.S. Constitution.
The constitutionality of State secession is the critical issue. If secession was constitutional, then it mattered not at all if the southern States retired from the union to protect the institution of slavery, or even to promote the legalization of cannibalism - the United States government had no legal grounds for using military force to prevent their departure. If, on the other hand, secession was unconstitutional, then it mattered not at all if the southern States left the union to organize transcontinental choruses of 'Kumbayah,' or find a cure for cancer - the action was illegal.
(Which is no doubt why some of the Union's more vociferous supporters here spend so much time focusing on slavery... ;>)