Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  And what is the GOP doing to the right to vote? (0+ / 0-)

    Yes, we still get to vote, for now.  But in states where the GOP have large majorities but are being threatened by demographic changes, they are doing everything possible to take away the right to vote.

    So the question you have to ask yourself is this:  If the GOP politicians take away your right to vote, and police with guns are guarding the polling places, do you still have the right to vote, and stuff?

    The simple reason why the right to own guns is an individual and not a group right is so that no one group can assume control and leave everyone else powerless to do anything about it.  It isn't about any one individual winning a fight with the police or national guard.  It is about the police or national guard never wanting to follow illegal orders to take rights away from millions of people who together can fight back.

    •  What are you suggesting? Shooting polling judges? (0+ / 0-)

      GOP legislators are making it harder to vote.  What are you going to do about that, start shooting up the polling places to get a ballot in a box?

      It is about the police or national guard never wanting to follow illegal orders to take rights away from millions of people who together can fight back.
      And aside from the right to own guns, nobody can so much as name a right at risk with the police and the military.  And that has to be VOTED ON FIRST.  And then MAKE IT THROUGH THE COURTS.

      Fact is, the threat to our democracy doesn't come from the police or the military.  The threat comes from people who think that a pile of guns plus some vague shit about rights means they can overturn democracy.   Those are the people who made up death squads, made up the nightriders, and threaten armed revolution every fucking day.  If push comes to shove, it's going to be them coming to your house, or shooting into your parade, or killing your leaders, and threatening your pols, not nice clean policemen trying to serve you a warrant.

      Wake up.  It's one thing to be scared shitless, it's another to be scared of what isn't even close to happening instead of the real theats you see every day.   Just wake the fuck up and smell the real threat.

      That's not even "gun control". It's more like "massacre control".

      by Inland on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 08:56:15 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's called a balance of power (0+ / 0-)

        In the same way that we have an armed military to make sure no other country ever invades us to take away our rights, we have an armed citizenry to make sure that no one group ever takes away our rights.

        I'm sorry that this strikes you as being paranoid, but an effective balance of power is what has secured rights for people throughout all of human history.  When one side is strong and the other side is weak, those civilizations alwasy devolve into brutal dictatorships.

        The one thing those "death squads" you talk about don't have is the power of a functioning government behind them.  No, I'm not worried about a few gun nuts who think they have an army.  My main concern is making sure we never have a dictator like those in the Middle East who think gassing all those troublesome protesters is a good idea because he can get away with it.

        And what real threats?  My great aunt wasn't shot with a gun, she was hacked to death by a psycho with a machette.

        See, if she'd been shot, then she would be a victim of gun violence, and "if only guns had been banned she'd still be alive" right?  But because she was hacked up with a rusty blade, well, that's just the random act of some psychopath, right?  Are you going to push for machette control now?

        So you can go shove it with your take that it's the guns that put me in danger.  I'm at risk of crazy people every day, and I accept that.  But I'm not at risk of living in a dictatorship, and I'll keep it that way thank you very much.

        •  Here's an idea Norm, (0+ / 0-)

          calm down and read Baron's article.

          The Second Amendment was not written to address the individual's right to have or use a gun. In fact it wasn't until recent US history that the courts even entertained the idea.

          However, we have all agreed though our laws that people can have guns to hunt and guns in their homes for self protection. But not all people, and not in all circumstances. We have regulations and restrictions on all kinds of items in our society that have the potential to cause harm to others... cars, chemicals, cigarettes and a whole list of others.

          What the NRA wants is NO regulations, no restrictions of any kind and they point to the Second Amendment as their back up.  They are just plain wrong... and increasingly dangerous  to our democracy.

          •  Rights are removed through due process (0+ / 0-)

            Rights are removed from individuals through due process in a court of law.  So no, not all people in all circumstances.  The criminally guilty and the criminally insane can have their 2nd Amendment rights removed by a jury of their peers, on an individual case by case basis.

            I'm fine with certain restrictions, so long as police and civilians are equal in those restrictions.  What's good enough for me in my home is good enough for the cops.  what I won't accept is people like you who think a high capacity magazine will ever work if the cops have them.  I guess you think the war on drugs has worked just fine as well right?  No black market whatsoever?

            But a question for you.  Since you believe the 2nd doesn't grant an individual right but instead a group right, then you must be just fine with racist sheriff Joe Arpaio's 3000 man posse, right?  You're just fine with 3000 armed racists running around AZ arresting brown people while everyone else is disarmed?  You like Arpaio's "well regulated militia", defending the free state of Arizona from Mexicans?

            Because the 2nd Amendment is law, and if that's the interpretation you want, then I hope you're prepared for the consequences.

            •  You not only still haven't read the article, (0+ / 0-)

              you are stuffing words in my mouth.  And you are hyperventilating along with it.

              I just really can't address this.

              •  Baron's? Link please? (0+ / 0-)

                The article linked to in the diary is by Thom Hartmann, on Truthout.

                If you'd like me to read a different article, kindly provide the link, thanks.

                •  I have posted that link a couple of times (0+ / 0-)

                  on different Second Amendment diaries on Daily Kos, and thought I did here too. My apologies...  here it is....


                  It's by linguistics expert Dennis Baron and was submitted in the DC gun law case at the Supreme Court.

                  •  Sorry, I reject that argument (0+ / 0-)

                    You're not going to win me over with a linguistic argument.  I believe in a strict individual right to own guns.

                    Nowhere in the 2nd Amendment does it say that an individual must be a militia member to keep and bear arms.  Nowhere does it say that the militia must be actively mustered in order for arms to be kept.  Nowhere does it say that the arms are collectively owned by the militia, or that they must be stored in a militia arsenal when the militia is not mustered.  In short, the 2nd Amendment makes zero connection between an individual and the militia with respect to gun ownership.

                    The 2nd Amendment also doesn't say that the citizen militia can be superseeded by professional soldiers and therefore the 2nd Amendment is not needed.

                    What the 2nd Amendment does say is that the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

                    Why must it not be infringed?  So that the people can defend the State (and themselves) when necessary.  Yes, self defense is implicit.  The purpose of the militia was not to be shipped off to England to take the fight to the King.  It was to defend one's nation, one's land, one's home and family.

                    I will not agree to your interpretations.  It is on you to show where mandatory militia membership is spelled out, and you can't do that, except by pretending that the militia and regular army were the same thing, and that the rights of the PEOPLE don't really exist.

                    You also want to take an individual right and transform it into a collective right.  You want to take power out of the hands of the many and concentrate it in the hands of the very few, and give them the power to be tyrants.  If there is anything that goes against the spirit of the Constitution and American democracy, it is that.

                    Care to try any other arguments?

                    •  Why ask for the article link if you (0+ / 0-)

                      have no intention of considering the evidence or the facts?  Haven't you ever wondered why that Amendment is worded so strangely, with commas in weird spots? There is an explanation. Sorry you can't seem to pull your mind out of the rut it is in on this.

                      Plus you keep accusing me of having positions that I did not advocate.

                      Here's something else to contemplate.  Try reading the history surrounding the creation of this amendment... like the Congressional records on the Bill of Rights debates.  Then look at what the Constitution says about the federal power and state militias in Article 1, sections 15 and 16.   Then look up articles on the Second Amendment in relation to slavery.   You will have a hard time finding evidence to support your view that the Second Amendment was written to give individuals gun rights. This is also addressed in Baron's well documented essay which of course, you won't read.

                      •  How was I supposed to know what it was? (0+ / 0-)

                        You didn't tell me what was in the article, you just asked me to read it.  Well I did, but I'd already read it before, and rejected it before.

                        You have to show where militia membership was mandatory,and it isn't there.

                        •  I don't know Norm, but I have a hard time (0+ / 0-)

                          picturing you actually reading this article, as it takes patience (lots of linguistics stuff) and you don't impress me as a patient kind of guy.

                          I don't have to show you anything and you have made it clear that even if I showed you article after article or argument after argument, you would not be moved.

                          I give.   You may now go into your bunker and await the apocalypse with all your guns.  Have fun.

                          •  I don't own guns, this is about rights (0+ / 0-)

                            Actually you do have to show me something if you want to win the argument, because Baron's argument already failed in court.  So if you have nothing else to present, then the individual right to own a gun stands.  I'll humor you though, because you're so set on proving that the 2nd is a group right only.

                            The big problem for you is that you're trying to have it both ways.  You want to have the 2nd Amendment accepted as only a group right.  But you then want to say that right is no longer necessary, so can be thrown out entirely.  Sorry, but it doesn't work that way.

                            You want to go through Baron's article in detail?  Fine, let's start with:

                            Hedging their bets, gun rights advocates argued in Heller that, even if the “militia clause”
                            does have some significance, they would read the word militia as referring to everybody.
                            Supporters of gun control interpret militia more narrowly as the members of the National
                            Guard, the military force that evolved from the 18th-century American state militias.
                            According to the Constitution, the militia consists only of those eligible to serve.
                            In the framers’ day, that included able-bodied, free white males, typically aged 16–45,
                            not the entire group of men, women and children.
                            That's me, a white male, aged 36.  I'm eligible for militia service, so I have the right to keep and bear arms.  Now I frown on discrimination like this, that says white males get guns while women and minorities are disarmed.  Do you really want to be one of the pigs from Animal Farm, claiming some people are more equal than others?
                            But you can discriminate all you want, I'm a white protestant land owner.  Every founding father would affirm my right to own a gun.  Next.
                            When each word in the text is given full effect, the Amendment is most
                            naturally read to secure to the people a right to use and possess arms in
                            conjunction with service in a well-regulated militia.
                            I can agree to that, that I have the right to use the weapon I individually keep in service with a militia.  As that is a Right, as I wrote in the other post, if you want to go the group Right route, you now have to provide me with this well-regulated militia, because it is necessary.  If every comma counts, so does the word necessary.  The militia can't just be causally dismissed, disbannded or replaced by a deployable regular army.  If you want to tie gun ownership to the militia, then there must be a militia.

                            For the "bear arms" clause, the most you can say is that concealed carry is struck down.  I'm fine with that too actually.  But you'll notice that Baron never delt with keep.  So I get to keep arms, and I get to bear them when I go train with my shiny new militia.

                            Now for what Baron didn't cover, and that's the second part of the amendment.  I know your type and how you read it.  But it doesn't say the right of the MILITIA to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  It says PEOPLE, as in everyone.  If you want to make some people less equal than others, you have to show where the Constitution says that.

                            The 2nd Amendment says that it is necessary for armed citizens to be able to defend themselves through a militia, and therefore all the people, all of them, get to keep and bear arms.

                            So either it is an individual right without militias, or it is a group right with militias.  But the end result is the same.

                            I'm really sorry about it, but you need a new argument.

                      •  The slavery argument is supposed to win me over? (0+ / 0-)

                        We're in a diary titled "The 2nd Amendment was Ratified to Preserve Slavery", and you want me to support the group rights view over the individual rights view?  Because the only way that the 2nd ever could preserve slavery is by saying that the only the rich and powerful get to have guns, and those with the guns get to determine who the slaves are.

                        If the slaves also had the right to own guns, there wouldn't have been any slavery, would there?  What slave with a loaded gun in his hand wouldn't blow his master's head off and make a run for it.

                        This just drives me even harder to support the individual right to own guns.  I think everyone has the right to self-defense, not just the God damned rich slave owners.

                  •  I can see it your way, but you won't like it (0+ / 0-)

                    For sake of argument, let's say that the 2nd Amendment does have to be interpreted literally, exactly as written.

                    It says that the militia is NECESSARY for the security of a free state.  It doesn't say it's a nice idea, it says necessary.  So where is the militia today if it's so necessary?  How dare we overturn the intentions of the founding fathers by disbanding it.

                    And before you suggest it, no, the National Guard and Regualar Army do not replace the militia.  Because those forces can be sent overseas to fight, and it's kind of hard to defend the Free State of Illinois if I've been deployed to Afghanistan.

                    So I will see you and raise you.  By your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, not only do I still have the right to keep and bear arms, but now you must give me a domestic, non deployable militia to join, because it is necessary.  It can be as well regulated as you like, but it must exist and allow me to join it as a free, law abiding citizen.

                    Have fun with that.

        •  No, no we don't. (0+ / 0-)
          we have an armed citizenry to make sure that no one group ever takes away our rights.
          We have an armed citizenry that has done almost nothing but take away our rights.  Except for a few puny self defense incidents, it's all use for crime or for planned use to overthrow democracy.

          That's why nobody saw you or any of the other RKBAs on this site calling for mobilization to fight any of the thousands of patriot groups in this country.  You aren't lifting a finger, either becuase you still think the government is the threat, not the people promising to overthrow it, not the people who occassionally bomb a building or abortion clinic, or because you never intended to use your guns for anyone's rights anyway.  

          I'm at risk of crazy people every day, and I accept that.
          Yeah, well, the kids at Newtown didn't.  See, I know the person you're most likely to kill with your gun is yourself, second  most likely, your friends and family members.  But when you start standing in the way of rules that protect kids, I think you're the one who can fucking shove it.  Nobody is going to keep putting up with your bullshit, because at some point, we vote and then you can start shooting with all the people you say you don't side with.  

          That's not even "gun control". It's more like "massacre control".

          by Inland on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 02:50:54 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site