Skip to main content

View Diary: The Second Amendment was Ratified to Preserve Slavery (294 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Exactly.. the RBKA have been lying for years (26+ / 0-)

    that gun control advocates are merely trying to undo the Second Amendment so that minorities cannot defend themselves.

    This lie was begun, Rove-like and Atwater-like, to preempt the REAL reason we have the Second Amendment; the Southern states would not ratify the Constitution without assurance that their Slave Catchers could stay armed and organized into State Militias. They were promised a Bill of Rights for Individual Rights in order to gain the necessary support for ratification.

    The result was a permanent institution of white power control of the south and the border states, and many of the Western states. As long as white people owned the guns, they would own the slaves and the laws. Its been 230 years of trying to unravel the Original Sin of the United States, and we are not done yet.  

    Figures don't lie, but liars do figure-Mark Twain

    by OregonOak on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 07:05:29 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Ironic (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      George Hier, FrankRose, Smoh

      I had that argument made to me here by a front pager.  Versatile argument this "You position is racist" business

      Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescendibles.

      by Mindful Nature on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 08:13:40 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Prove you history here please. (7+ / 0-)

      Prove that I lied in this diary over 3 yrs ago.

      Show me your first hand source materials please.

      IF history were anything other than what it is, I'd agree with you completely...BUT it is not.

      I'll give you time to collect your legitimate source materials.

      Show me your history, I'll show you mine!

      Last time I looked at the Ratification Documents, the majority of NORTHERN STATES demanded the Bill of Rights be included!

      AND if history tells us one thing, it tells us that it was New York, Pennsylvania and Virginia that got the ball rolling after a year of Congress doing nothing to add them!  The State legislatures passed resolutions to amend the Constitution and add the Bill of Rights to the Constitution themselves. It was after these constitutional moves were unfolding when Congress realized they were going to lose any and all control of the newly created central government if they didn't act...They had no choice but to act according to the wishes of the 3 most populace States AND finally took the submitted amendments out of committee and debated them.

      The original verbiage used in the 2nd A makes some very clear distinctions here:

      The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.
      AND the First Debates In Congress ON the 2nd Amendment had nothing to do with slavery, that's a red herring!

      Page 778, "The Annals Of Congress:

         "A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms".

          This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms.

          "What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now, it must be evident, that, under this provision, together with their other powers, Congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as to make a standing army necessary.

          Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."

      -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

      by gerrilea on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 09:25:30 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Then why is the below in Article I Sec. 8? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

        To provide and maintain a Navy;

        To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

        •  Where's the contradiction? The Constitution (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          FrankRose, gerrilea

          assumed the existence of militias, defined by Webster in the period as the body of male citizens capable of bearing arms, as the primary means of national and local defense, as well as law enforcement (with the tradition of "hue and cry"), and empowered Congress to raise armies when that was insufficient, but limited the timespan of the appropriations in a hope (vain, it turns out) to prevent large standing armies.

          gerrilea is pointing out that from its inception, the 2nd was intended to preserve an individual right to bear arms, as shown by the explicit focus of the removed clause on the individual. And like protecting the right to keep and bear, said clause was intended to protect people's right to choose not to if religiously scrupulous - in parallel to the "establishment" vs "free exercise" construction as regards religious liberty.

          Congressman Gerry's objection, while seemingly out of nowhere - the idea that a clause allowing the religiously scrupulous to decline to bear arms could be twisted into a prohibition against those declared such by the government from doing so - again speaks to the primary concern in the debates - whether individuals would have the right guaranteed by the state, and how to avoid loopholes that would permit the government to deprive that individual right.

          Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

          by Robobagpiper on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 05:24:01 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  How about someone providing citations to that (5+ / 0-)

      which supports the clip in the diary before suggesting that RKBA in particular are liars, as being 'liars' requires one knows the untruth of what they are accused of saying. A little evidence, a few links or footnotes would be a good thing. Somebody who has the Federalist papers text, perhaps.

      •  Do you know The Federalist Society? One of the few (0+ / 0-)

        right wing propaganda machines that are possibly even more vile than the NRA.

        There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

        by oldpotsmuggler on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 01:36:13 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site