pro or con the second amendment?

[sparky]

No...dumb ass....another lie by shitheads like you...

With an established legal tradition protecting the right of the people to keep and bear arms coming from England in 1688, it is difficult to argue that the roots of the Second Amendment are racist or meant to deal with potential slave revolts. The English simply were not in the least bit concerned about the potential for slave revolts and "anti-Blackness" in America when they drafted their Bill of Rights in 1688.

------

Invasions from foreign enemies, American Indians, and pirates, but no mention of "anti-Blackness" or the need to prevent or deal with slave revolts. Why did the writers of the Articles of Confederation go through the trouble of listing out the various threats that necessitated a militia but leave out "anti-Blackness" and slave revolts? There can be only one parsimonious explanation: the framers of the Articles of Confederation saw invasions from enemies, attacks from American Indians, and piracy as real threats to the fledgling states and felt it necessary to specifically mention these potential threats and lay the groundwork for how the individual states and the confederacy as a whole would respond.

-----

It is here that we find such Founding Fathers as James Madison stating during the Constitutional Convention, "A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty" (hat tip to The Avalon Project at Yale Law School's Lillian Goldman Law Library).



In the Annals of Congress, we find Elbridge Gerry asserting without challenge that the purpose of the declaration of rights (Bill of Rights) is "to secure the people against the mal-administration of Government" and that the purpose and use of the militia "is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty." These concerns about the threats posed by a large standing army (not by potential slave revolts) were echoed by other Federalists and Anti-Federalists throughout the ratification process and throughout the debates in Congress, when the first ten amendments were proposed. Indeed, in his first annual message as president in 1801, Thomas Jefferson summed up the prevailing view of the role of the militia best when he said (again, hat tip to The Avalon Project at Yale Law School's Lillian Goldman Law Library):


It is not necessary to rely solely on history to disprove the "racist Second Amendment" argument.

A rational look at the Second Amendment and subsequent actions taken by Congress proves that the Second Amendment had nothing to do with race.


For instance, if it were true that the Second Amendment was meant to be a tool to deal with potential slave revolts, then the adoption of the Thirteenth Amendment, which abolished slavery in 1865, would have made the Second Amendment moot. That Congress did not repeal the Second Amendment when the Thirteenth Amendment was adopted, nor has repealed it since that time, only strengthens the argument that the Second Amendment was not and is not intended to deal with potential slave revolts. Furthermore, that slavery was not just limited to black people of African descent, but extended to American Indians and even black people enslaving people of their own race, proves that even if was a tool to deal with potential slave revolts, it was far from being "anti-Black" or even racist. These inconvenient truths do not fit the narrative.

----

As far as the Second Amendment is concerned, the truth is quite discernible: far from being a tool to disenfranchise or oppress, the Second Amendment is and always has been a mechanism for safeguarding, securing, and protecting the people from foreign threats and an overreaching government. Indeed, the Second Amendment is all about preventing the shackles of slavery from ever being applied to the people, and should that unlucky day come, it is all about shattering those shackles. I

The Second Amendment: Not Racist, but Definitely Pro-Freedom







Spooner used the Second Amendment to argue that slavery was unconstitutional. Since a slave is a person who is (or can be) forbidden to possess arms, and the Second Amendment guarantees that all persons can possess arms, no person in the United States can be a slave.
------
The right of a man "to keep and bear arms," is a right palpably inconsistent with the idea of his being a slave. Yet the right is secured as effectually to those whom the States presume to call slaves, as to any whom the States condescend to acknowledge free.

==============



For 20 years now, a well-meaning law professor has been peddling the fiction that the Second Amendment – guaranteeing the right of Americans to keep and bear arms – was adopted to protect slavery. He first proposed this in a 1998 law review article and trotted it out again in a recent New York Times op-ed.

The trouble is: It’s untrue. Not a single one of America’s founders is known to have suggested such a purpose.

When the Redcoats came to disarm the colonists, the American patriots relied on the right to “have arms for their Defense,” as stated in the English Declaration of Rights of 1689.

In 1776, Pennsylvania declared: “That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves, and the state.” Vermont copied that language in its constitution, which explicitly abolished slavery. Massachusetts and North Carolina adopted their own versions.

When the states debated adoption of the Constitution without a bill of rights in 1787-88, Samuel Adams proposed the right to bear arms in Massachusetts’s ratification convention. The Dissent of the Minority did so in Pennsylvania, and the entire New Hampshire convention demanded recognition of the right.

There was no connection to slavery in any of these historical antecedents.

In his articles, Professor Carl T. Bogus of Roger Williams University speculates that George Mason’s and Patrick Henry’s demands in the Virginia ratification convention could have been motivated to protect slavery. Not so.

Mason recalled that “when the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised … to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”

And Patrick Henry implored: “The great object is, that every man be armed.” The ensuing debate concerned defense against tyranny and invasion – not slavery.

New York, North Carolina and Rhode Island joined in the demand for what became the Second Amendment. The right to bear arms had universal support.

It was the denial of the right of all “the people” to bear arms that supported slavery. The Supreme Court’s notorious Dred Scott decision held that African-Americans could not be regarded as citizens, for otherwise they could hold political meetings and “keep and carry arms wherever they went.” Frederick Douglass advocated Second Amendment rights for all, and Sojourner Truth carried guns in helping slaves to escape.

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/the-second-amendment-had-nothing-to-do-with-slavery

UNCLE 2aguy, we're gonna have a constitutional stroke here......~S~

 

[sparky]

The Citizenry are the Militias

But are we 'well regulated' ????

~S~

 

[Curried Goats]

No...dumb ass....another lie by shitheads like you...

With an established legal tradition protecting the right of the people to keep and bear arms coming from England in 1688, it is difficult to argue that the roots of the Second Amendment are racist or meant to deal with potential slave revolts. The English simply were not in the least bit concerned about the potential for slave revolts and "anti-Blackness" in America when they drafted their Bill of Rights in 1688.

------

Invasions from foreign enemies, American Indians, and pirates, but no mention of "anti-Blackness" or the need to prevent or deal with slave revolts. Why did the writers of the Articles of Confederation go through the trouble of listing out the various threats that necessitated a militia but leave out "anti-Blackness" and slave revolts? There can be only one parsimonious explanation: the framers of the Articles of Confederation saw invasions from enemies, attacks from American Indians, and piracy as real threats to the fledgling states and felt it necessary to specifically mention these potential threats and lay the groundwork for how the individual states and the confederacy as a whole would respond.

-----

It is here that we find such Founding Fathers as James Madison stating during the Constitutional Convention, "A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty" (hat tip to The Avalon Project at Yale Law School's Lillian Goldman Law Library).



In the Annals of Congress, we find Elbridge Gerry asserting without challenge that the purpose of the declaration of rights (Bill of Rights) is "to secure the people against the mal-administration of Government" and that the purpose and use of the militia "is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty." These concerns about the threats posed by a large standing army (not by potential slave revolts) were echoed by other Federalists and Anti-Federalists throughout the ratification process and throughout the debates in Congress, when the first ten amendments were proposed. Indeed, in his first annual message as president in 1801, Thomas Jefferson summed up the prevailing view of the role of the militia best when he said (again, hat tip to The Avalon Project at Yale Law School's Lillian Goldman Law Library):


It is not necessary to rely solely on history to disprove the "racist Second Amendment" argument.

A rational look at the Second Amendment and subsequent actions taken by Congress proves that the Second Amendment had nothing to do with race.


For instance, if it were true that the Second Amendment was meant to be a tool to deal with potential slave revolts, then the adoption of the Thirteenth Amendment, which abolished slavery in 1865, would have made the Second Amendment moot. That Congress did not repeal the Second Amendment when the Thirteenth Amendment was adopted, nor has repealed it since that time, only strengthens the argument that the Second Amendment was not and is not intended to deal with potential slave revolts. Furthermore, that slavery was not just limited to black people of African descent, but extended to American Indians and even black people enslaving people of their own race, proves that even if was a tool to deal with potential slave revolts, it was far from being "anti-Black" or even racist. These inconvenient truths do not fit the narrative.

----

As far as the Second Amendment is concerned, the truth is quite discernible: far from being a tool to disenfranchise or oppress, the Second Amendment is and always has been a mechanism for safeguarding, securing, and protecting the people from foreign threats and an overreaching government. Indeed, the Second Amendment is all about preventing the shackles of slavery from ever being applied to the people, and should that unlucky day come, it is all about shattering those shackles. I

The Second Amendment: Not Racist, but Definitely Pro-Freedom







Spooner used the Second Amendment to argue that slavery was unconstitutional. Since a slave is a person who is (or can be) forbidden to possess arms, and the Second Amendment guarantees that all persons can possess arms, no person in the United States can be a slave.
------
The right of a man "to keep and bear arms," is a right palpably inconsistent with the idea of his being a slave. Yet the right is secured as effectually to those whom the States presume to call slaves, as to any whom the States condescend to acknowledge free.

==============



For 20 years now, a well-meaning law professor has been peddling the fiction that the Second Amendment – guaranteeing the right of Americans to keep and bear arms – was adopted to protect slavery. He first proposed this in a 1998 law review article and trotted it out again in a recent New York Times op-ed.

The trouble is: It’s untrue. Not a single one of America’s founders is known to have suggested such a purpose.

When the Redcoats came to disarm the colonists, the American patriots relied on the right to “have arms for their Defense,” as stated in the English Declaration of Rights of 1689.

In 1776, Pennsylvania declared: “That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves, and the state.” Vermont copied that language in its constitution, which explicitly abolished slavery. Massachusetts and North Carolina adopted their own versions.

When the states debated adoption of the Constitution without a bill of rights in 1787-88, Samuel Adams proposed the right to bear arms in Massachusetts’s ratification convention. The Dissent of the Minority did so in Pennsylvania, and the entire New Hampshire convention demanded recognition of the right.

There was no connection to slavery in any of these historical antecedents.

In his articles, Professor Carl T. Bogus of Roger Williams University speculates that George Mason’s and Patrick Henry’s demands in the Virginia ratification convention could have been motivated to protect slavery. Not so.

Mason recalled that “when the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised … to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”

And Patrick Henry implored: “The great object is, that every man be armed.” The ensuing debate concerned defense against tyranny and invasion – not slavery.

New York, North Carolina and Rhode Island joined in the demand for what became the Second Amendment. The right to bear arms had universal support.

It was the denial of the right of all “the people” to bear arms that supported slavery. The Supreme Court’s notorious Dred Scott decision held that African-Americans could not be regarded as citizens, for otherwise they could hold political meetings and “keep and carry arms wherever they went.” Frederick Douglass advocated Second Amendment rights for all, and Sojourner Truth carried guns in helping slaves to escape.

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/the-second-amendment-had-nothing-to-do-with-slavery

They were a bunch of brutal thugs and slavers who engaged in civil war, frequently. Which is technically what the Revolutionary War was to Britain. If you dumb Bingos could properly recognize them for the violent monsters that they were maybe we could start to question what lessons we should really learn from them.

 

[Concerned American]

what lessons we learn from them.

According to another racist bigot.

 

[Curried Goats]

According to another racist bigot.

There there snowflake.

 

[Failzero]

But are we 'well regulated' ????

~S~

We were/are in the California State Militia

 

[miketx]

I'm pro second amendment but the second amendment that acknowledges the words "A well regulated militia" at the the beginning. If you want to own and keep a gun you should have to join a well regulated militia (not a militia of weekend warrior yahoos but something equivalent to the national guard) and follow their regulations with regards to what type up guns you can keep and how.

 

[Robert W]

Pro.

But pro the way it way written, not the way it's been reinterpreted by the RWNJs.

What are you saying, precisely?
If you plan to ignore "The right to keep and bear arms is not to be infringed on" I can't agree.
If you get that it is the defining part, We agree.

 

[miketx]

I'm pro second amendment but the second amendment that acknowledges the words "A well regulated militia" at the the beginning. If you want to own and keep a gun you should have to join a well regulated militia (not a militia of weekend warrior yahoos but something equivalent to the national guard) and follow their regulations with regards to what type up guns you can keep and how.

We are all part of a well regulated militia, commie.

 

[sparky]

We were/are in the California State Militia

A minion of the state then? ~S~

 

[Curried Goats]

We are all part of a well regulated militia, commie.

I don't think you know what that word means. Commies weren't anti gun. They were kind of essential to the October Revolution. Arming citizens is what might leave you open to an armed assault from violent American communists, as unlikely as that is. Learn history you ignorant Bingos. Maybe crack open a book.

 

[Robert W]

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

Dumbass.

Were it the right for the Government, but not the people, it would not have been in the Bill of Rights, but up in the parts of the constitution directing Government. Infringe means hands off.

For a fact, you are ignoring the ruling by the Supreme Court as well.

 

[Oddball]

They were a bunch of brutal thugs and slavers who engaged in civil war, frequently. Which is technically what the Revolutionary War was to Britain. If you dumb Bingos could properly recognize them for the violent monsters that they were maybe we could start to question what lessons we should really learn from them.

Must be those "Bingos" making a shooting gallery out of Chicago, huh?

 

[Oddball]

 

[Hossfly]

Doesn't that remark from Curried Goats remind you of the pussifed idiot Gersh KUNTzman, and his report of his experience firing an AR-15?

What is it like to fire an AR-15? It’s horrifying, menacing and very very loud

It felt to me like a bazooka — and sounded like a cannon. One day after 49 people were killed in the Orlando shooting, I traveled to Philadelphia to better understand the firepower of militar…

www.nydailynews.com

Surely, Curried Goats is a similar breed of СUNТzman, himself.

How do you suppose it would affect either of those pussies to fire a gun like an M-1?

tKuntzman doesn't realize that an AR-15 is simply a souped up ,22 cal. And liberal pukes will never get it through their thick skulls that a shooter can do just as much damage with a single shot rifle as an AR-15. He just does it slower.

 

[progressive hunter]

So these guys are all insane, right?
View attachment 849600

View attachment 849601


View attachment 849602

 

[sparky]

And as an army vet you know doing it at the range is the same as engaging HAMAS at 85 with adrenaline coursing through you....

My pop just turned 98, he was 19 during the battle of the bulge

My neighbor is 75, served in some god forsaken asian swamp

They might look used up, but they've a lotta pepper left , something one grows to appreciate, and wouldn't mind seeing more in our youth....

~S~

 

[Curried Goats]

My pop just turned 98, he was 19 during the battle of the bulge

My neighbor is 75, served in some god forsaken asian swamp

They might look used up, but they've a lotta pepper left , something one grows to appreciate, and wouldn't mind seeing more in our youth....

~S~

Sure.

 

[Thinker101]

I can't imagine any American citizen actually being against the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution. That's like saying you don't have the right to free speech, the right to vote, or the right to worship whatever religion you want.

So true, although we do have a boat load of commies that feel we shouldn't have a right to free speech, right to vote or right to worship.

 

[Failzero]

A minion of the state then? ~S~

I did not say California National Guard ( Or GS12 )