Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  You are completely wrong (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    alain2112, Dallasdoc, JayBat, blueness

    And you might want to take that in the context of New Hampshires exclusion of an individual right to bear arms.

    XXIV. A well regulated militia is the proper, natural, and sure defence of a state.

    XXV. Standing armies are dangerous to liberty, and ought not to be raised or kept up without the consent of the legislature.

    XXVI. In all cases, and at all times, the military ought to be under strict subordination to, and governed by the civil power.

    •  Meaningless red herrings. (4+ / 0-)

      http://www.usconstitution.net/...

      I. That it be explicitly declared that all powers not expressly and particularly delegated by the aforesaid Constitution are reserved to the several states, to be by them exercised.

      II. That there shall be one representative to every thirty thousand persons, according to the census mentioned in the Constitution, until the whole number of representatives amount to two hundred.

      III. That Congress do not exercise the powers vested in them by the fourth section of the first article but in cases when a state shall neglect or refuse to make the regulations therein mentioned, or shall make regulations subversive of the rights of the people to a free and equal representation in Congress; nor shall Congress in any case make regulations contrary to a free and equal representation.

      IV. That Congress do not lay direct taxes but when the moneys arising from impost, excise, and their other resources, are insufficient for the public exigencies, nor then, until Congress shall have first made a requisition upon the states to assess, levy, and pay, their respective proportions of such requisition, agreeably to the census fixed in the said Constitution, in such way and manner as the legislature of the state shall think best; and in such case, if any state shall neglect, then Congress may assess and levy such state's proportion, together with the interest thereon, at the rate of six per cent. per annum, from the time of payment prescribed in such requisition.

      V. That Congress shall erect no company of merchants with exclusive advantages of commerce.

      VI. That no person shall be tried for any crime by which he may incur an infamous punishment, or loss of life, until he first be indicted by a grand jury, except in such cases as may arise in the government and regulation of the land and naval forces.

      VII. All common-law cases between citizens of different states shall be commenced in the common-law courts of the respective states; and no appeal shall be allowed to the federal court, in such cases, unless the sum or value of the thing in controversy amount to three thousand dollars.

      VIII. In civil actions between citizens of different states, every issue of fact, arising in actions at common law, shall be tried by jury, if the parties, or either of them, request it.

      IX. Congress shall at no time consent that any person, holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall accept any title of nobility, or any other title or office, from any king, prince, or foreign state.

      X. That no standing army shall be kept up in time of peace, unless with the consent of three fourths of the members of each branch of Congress; nor shall soldiers, in time of peace, be quartered upon private houses, without the consent of the owners.

      XI. Congress shall make no laws touching religion, or to infringe the rights of conscience.

      XII. Congress shall never disarm any citizen, unless such as are or have been in actual rebellion.

      Where are you getting the 24th, 25th and 26th points from? Their State Constitution?  Show me your source. While still a meaningless red herring, I'll read it in the entire context please.

      We are not talking about their State Constitution.

      New Hampshire presented 12 Rights to the Federal Government with their Ratification Documents.

      The last being the right to keep and bear arms.

      How this is incorrect is beyond me.

      YOU CANNOT RE-WRITE HISTORY.

      -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 Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 12:00:54 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  You said it was never meant to be a (0+ / 0-)

        collective right. You are wrong. Look at my comment to this diary and you will see I agree with you. You can't re write history. I sited quite a few original northern state constitutions including New Hampshire's to debunk this made up theory that the 2nd amendment focused on maintaining slavery.

        As a defense against tyranny, only a collective right makes any sense. And it is explained as such in numerous state constitutions and in the 2nd amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Regardless of an additional individual right to bear arms that may or may not have been intended. The collective right is explicit.

        A militia is never an individual. Use your head.

        •  An army of one. You are still mistaken hon. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          sensetolisten

          Please use your head here.  There is nothing explicit about the original text except that it was always about an individual right.  They removed it to prevent the central government from destroying the constitution itself.

          One can fight individually or collectively.  Whether or not a legitimate defense against tyranny is successful would be based on firepower.  Would I need my fellow citizens to fight beside me against a tyrannical government if I wielded a few nuclear bombs? Probably not.  Barring that extreme example, it would be beneficial for us to come together collectively and fight against the tyranny.

          A "militia" is always the individual, even in current US code:

          http://www.law.cornell.edu/...

          (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
          (b) The classes of the militia are—
          (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
          (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

          You can't have a militia without the individual, period.

          -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 Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 06:46:13 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Dont call me hon, asshole. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            MarkC, Rick Aucoin

            Your attempt to make militia mean an individual is one of the most idiotic comments I've seen on this issue.

            You must be the unorganized militia.

            •  Nope, I'm over 45 yrs of age, hon. n/t (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              sensetolisten

              So, where's that theory of yours again? How's it fit into the reality that many people over that age actually own firearms? Or what about housewives? Are they part of the militia too? NOPE.

              -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 Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 08:14:22 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  asdf you are siting words that (7+ / 0-)

        were stricken from the ratified version, but call the State's actual constitution a red herring? Get real.

        •  Two completely different issues hon. (0+ / 0-)

          The Ratification Documents, that I sourced show the State Of New Hampshire believed it was a individual right the newly created central government must be prevented from abrogating.

          The second issue is their own State Constitution.  While it may lead to support their beliefs here, they did not "tie that right exclusively to militia service" and even if they did, it's a red herring and meaningless in this context because each State could do anything they wanted.

          New Hampshire made clear the central government could not deny that right to any individual.

          -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 Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 06:37:08 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Your manner of addressing me is a surrender (0+ / 0-)

            of your credibility. I accept it.

            The issue is your absurd statement that the right never applied to a collectively. You were wrong to say it and are even more wrong in trying to defend it.

            •  We can agree to disagree, good day! n/t (0+ / 0-)

              -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 Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 10:02:30 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site