" to bear arms for the only noble purpose for which men can take arms--in defense of the Constitution and liberties of people..."

"Another charge is, that the President has violated the Constitution of the United States in this: that he has disarmed citizens; refused them the privilege, under the Constitution, of bearing arms. Sir, it is true that he has refused traitors the privilege of using arms against the Government of the country. General Lyon, of Missouri, and the gallant Frank Blair, and their associates, did disarm some fifteen hundred rebels at Camp Jackson, near St. Louis; and for that we are told they are violators of the Constitution. What other instance does the Senator from Kentucky remember in which the right to bear arms been refused to any citizen? The President has not only guarantied, by his action, the right to bear arms, but he has invited the patriotic citizens of the United States to bear arms for the only noble purpose for which men can take arms--in defense of the Constitution and liberties of people. Is the right to bear arms in Kentucky so sacred that it may never be violated? Then, why do you not bear arms in defense of the Constitution and liberties of the Republic? There is a right to bear arms that is worth something. Does Kentucky stand upon the right to arms? Why is she not bearing arms upon the battle-field to-day, beside Massachusetts and Indiana and Ohio, and the loyal States? Why does she not insist upon her right to bear arms, when traitors are seeking to tear down the Government under which we live?"

- Senator James H. Lane, of Indiana, July 16, 1861, The Congressional Globe, Pg. 143. (James Henry Lane also known as Jim Lane, (June 22, 1814 – July 11, 1866), served as a United States Senator and as a general who fought for the Union).