Merv's Politically Incorrect Audio Blog

Discussion in 'SBAF Blogs' started by purr1n, Dec 26, 2018.

  1. RobS

    RobS RobS? More like RobDiarrhea.

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2019
    Likes Received:
    1,881
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Location:
    .
    That's the false NRA narrative. The whole point of the 2nd Amendment was to perpetuate the rape, torture and enslavement of millions of people.
     
  2. TheIceman93

    TheIceman93 El pato-zorro

    Friend
    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2016
    Likes Received:
    1,229
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Location:
    SoCal
    Yes, I believe that because all the evidence points to that conclusion. I'll try again. The notion of the individual right to bear arms was a part of the English Bill of Rights published all the way back in 1689. Prominent English legal scholars such as William Blackstone elaborated on the right's importance and his writings were well known in the colonies. Hence, it was a concept that was familiar to the founding fathers and a concept that was not linked with slave revolt suppression.

    Furthermore, the individual right to bear arms was included in the state constitutions of three Northern states, states that also banned the slave trade. So obviously, they drew a distinction between slavery and private gun ownership. To state that they were making concessions to the South is patently false. If that were the case than Southern states would have included the right to bear arms in their constitutions before the North did. They did not.

    Despite the fact that Madison was from Virginia, I do believe that his view of the 2nd Amendment was in line with the anti-slavery Northern states and his writings in The Federalist Papers lays this out.

    What the hell is the point of your argument? Even if, worst-case scenario, the 2nd Amendment was just a ruse to kill more slaves, do you really think the overwhelming majority of gun owners in this country practice that right for the same reason? This whole notion of the 2nd Amendment being a racist ploy is just another recent attempt to undermine our faith in our founding principles so they can be replaced with something far more sinister. Don't buy the bullshit.
     
    • Like / Agree Like / Agree x 7
    • List
  3. RobS

    RobS RobS? More like RobDiarrhea.

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2019
    Likes Received:
    1,881
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Location:
    .
    Nope it wasn't. Read this:

    https://lawreview.law.ucdavis.edu/issues/31/2/Articles/DavisVol31No2_Bogus.pdf

    Real scholars have to deal with this scholarship, which to this day remains unrebutted. Bogus has shown, indisputably, that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to arm militias in the south to intimidate and kill slaves. He pointed out the connection between southern paranoia and the 2nd Amendment which had basically been suppressed by the patriotic clap trap for 200 years. So important was this function to slaveholders that the South refused to allow militias to be used against the British.

    So much for the false narrative about the Founders wanting to protect the individual liberties of yeoman against an overreaching government.

    The fact that the NRA or even the arch-conservative Supreme Court we have now has bought into this narrative doesn't change the fact that it is false and that the real history of the 2nd Amendment is scandalous. Therefore it should be excised from the Constitution, just like other pro-slavery provisions were after the Civil War.

    And yes I'm for properly interpreting the 2nd Amendment: null and void since its purpose is no longer valid.

    The text of the amendment should be stated for what it really meant to the founders:

    "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of Southern Slaveholders and necessary to exploit slaves and prevent slave uprisings, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

    The driving force behind the 2nd Amendment (not gun rights or some other formulation but the particular LANGUAGE of the 2nd Amendment) was southern slave owners concerns about their use of militias to suppress black.

    Since slavery is now illegal, the whole purpose of the 2nd Amendment is invalid and should be attacked on that ground.

    This will happen. It's just a matter of time. There's no place in the modern world for the type of people who need to wear guns to the local Starbucks.

    More evidence of militia used for slave control:

    "Mason and Henry made many arguments against ratification, but one of the strategies they devised was particularly shrewd. Virginia was nearly half black, and the white population lived in constant fear of slave insurrection. The main instrument of control was the militia. So critical was the militia for slave control that, in the main, the southern states refused to commit their militia to the war against the British. The Constitution, however, would transfer the lion's share of the power over the militia to Congress. Slavery was becoming increasingly obnoxious to the North, and southern delegates to the Philadelphia convention demanded and got an agreement, somewhat cryptically written into the Constitution, that deprived the federal government of authority to abolish slavery. Mason and Henry raised the specter of Congress using its authority over the militia to do indirectly what it could not do directly. They suggested that Congress might refuse to call forth the militia to suppress an insurrection, send southern militia to New Hampshire, orï and on this they harped repeatedly disarm the militia. For Virginia and the South, these were chilling prospects."

    https://books.google.com/books?id=squO4z5WI4QC
     
  4. robot zombie

    robot zombie Friend

    Friend
    Joined:
    May 11, 2016
    Likes Received:
    1,702
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Location:
    Ennui, FL
    Oh there's just been so much... and it's been occurring to me how bad our channels for information are. I have a hard time trusting the narratives on the news. Take the protests/riots for example, they all skew differently, but fundamentally they all show the same sparse, but homogeneous accounts of things happening. I'm not convinced any of it is even half of the picture. Mostly you see a: people running out of businesses with stuff, no police around - you mostly see them destroying property, and everything shown has to do with businesses. Or b: peaceful-looking protests with police hanging out. So there are these neat little dividers between all of the characters and exchanges. You watch it and you just know there is so much you're not seeing.

    But the footage popping up around the net shows a very different side, where it often looks like the riot guys out there are actually escalating the violence and really using pretty brutal tactics. I've seen a lot of footage of people getting hurt and quite possibly even killed by these units, with seemingly no discretion or attempt to diffuse. Are all of these people I'm seeing getting treated so violently by police all extremists? I'm sure some of them really are, but a lot of them don't act much like extremists. They seem pretty helpless to really hold their own against the levels of force coming at them, or even back out. I'm having a hard time understanding the ROE as I watch these exchanges. I may just be missing the context, one way or another, I never see what triggers the violence in the moments before it starts. There just isn't, and then there's a lot of it.

    And the question I'm coming out with as I watch the news and I watch these things is "WTF is going on?" I honestly do not know what to make of it. In every action taken in all of the footage I see, I ask "What brings a person to that place and has them doing those things?" The cops, the protestors, the bystanders, the vandals, the looters. Where does it all come from? Endless things to look at there, which can't always be seen right now. You just see different shit playing out and it's all kinda varying shades of gray. It's all out there, and of course you know people pick and choose what they show - it's obvious who brings out what footage and why. But you see none of that side on TV, it's just about one or two major cases.

    Seeing the brutality of things not being shown throws the whole dialogue into question! But I don't get the sense that even having that in there would give a clear picture. I feel like there's a big context void that ALL of it sits in. People give all sorts of reasons, and of course bad actors come out to make public use of the confusion - who knows what anybody really wants. There are all of these moral/philosophical issues we talk about, but they all drift into abstraction - this eternal back-and-forth. People want to try to draw definitive lines over it, but I think that's not as tidy of a process as people might like it to be in all of the chaos.

    And yet, as dense as that recent stuff is to try and unpack, it's still only a small section of the cornucopia of happenings. It's like the undersides of everything are turning over all at once. It's too much for me - I can handle it emotionally but it's more than I can keep track of. The cause-effect tickers are flipping so fast you just see a blurred line.

    There's just kind of a theme going on right now, where there are a whole lot of moral/social issues combining with major economic strain and as such a bunch of different people are pushing in a bunch of different directions and the systems we have are serving to cultivate a hotbed of situations with all sorts of bizarre, extreme outcomes. Powder kegs are lit and instability will run its course. Only afterwards will things start to make more sense... whenever that is. If these are stress tests of our society, discourse, government, and economy, then... woah.

    There are clear mechanisms that move everything and those can be uncovered, but I think we'll be trying to figure out ALL of what's happening now, for a long time to come. It's really all just part of a cycle we've been in for quite a while. And a lot of people have said they knew over the years, but nothing changes and things don't become clearer. There is so much standing in the way of making any meaningful sense of it. More than anything, it's frustrating to even understand what is actually going on, let alone what is true or right. We're fractaling.
     
    • Like / Agree Like / Agree x 1
    • List
    Last edited: Jun 21, 2020
  5. TheIceman93

    TheIceman93 El pato-zorro

    Friend
    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2016
    Likes Received:
    1,229
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Location:
    SoCal
    @RobS - I'm so glad that you revealed that Carl T. Bogus is your source for all this. His New York Times article on this subject published a few years ago has been rebutted numerous times. That guy is a total crank and yes, his scholarship is very much in question. I'm not one to make fun of someone for their last name but in this case, it's very apt. His argument is total Bogus.

    Yes, I've read it so here is Mr. Bogus's argument - Virginia allowed slavery and as a result, slaves would rightfully rebel and attempt to flee to the North where slavery was illegal. Some Virginians were worried that the proposed Constitution would block their use of state militias to quell these rebellions. James Madison was a Virginian who cared only about appeasing the racists he represented so he put his support behind the concept of an individual's right to bear arms because those same individuals would be called upon to join a state militia should a slave uprising occur. Therefore his inclusion of the individual's right to bear arms in the Bill of Rights was racially motivated and as such, it its wrong for modern Americans to own firearms for their own protection. Since the underpinnings of the 2nd Amendment are fundamentally racist, the Supreme Court should strip that right from the people, forcing them to depend on the protective services of local Police Departments, that oh, by the way, are also hopelessly racist and need to be massively defunded or eliminated entirely. I'm sorry but that's basically what it boils down to. He doesn't like the idea of civilian firearms ownership so he has chosen to view the Amendment's creation through a very narrow, and quite distorted lens to undermine the Amendment's validity and open the door to gun bans and confiscation. The biggest problem is that the more feeble-minded members of the Supreme Court also think like this and will undoubtedly try to act on this narrative when they have the numbers.

    So let me once again (for the last time) pull the rug out from Mr. Bogus's argument.

    1. The most important argument against this narrative is the fact that the idea of an individual's right to bear arms for self-defense was very popular in the slavery-free Northern states. Prior to the drafting of the Constitution, four states had included explicit statements in their own constitutions on the rights of the citizenry to keep and bear arms. Of those four states, three of them were slavery-free Northern states (Pennsylvania, Vermont, and Massachusetts). While the language for the 2nd Amendment is largely taken from Virginia's 1776 constitution, the original constitution of that state did not contain an explicit statement on the right to keep and bear arms. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" was not added to Virginia's own constitution until 1971. Madison added that statement to the US Bill of Rights after ratification debates had taken place, with Northern state representatives arguing for its inclusion. Madison himself was in agreement with them and even stated that the Bill of Rights, as written, included only the rights that had been agreed upon without any notable objections from the other states.

    The point at which each state established the right to keep and bear arms can be found here: https://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/statecon.htm

    2. Why was there agreement between Northern and Southern states on this issue? Well, it makes sense if you understood that the very concept for an individual's right to bear arms was originally found in the English Bill of Rights from 1689. It stated that citizens "have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law". In England, this right was never intended to arm slave suppression militias and as Englishmen, the framers (especially in the North) were unlikely to view this right in such a way. I also doubt that Madison only viewed it as a tool to suppress slave rebellions because his writings in The Federalist Papers say otherwise.

    This is from Federalist #46: "Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."

    Madison either truly believed this or he was lying through his teeth and hoodwinked all the other states into backing an Amendment that was, and only was, about killing slaves more easily. This is totally nonsensical, especially in light of point #1 above.

    At the end of the day, this debate is largely pointless because you have totally bought into this reading of the 2nd Amendment. Even if Virginia only intended to use the Amendment to kill freedom-seeking slaves, that does not take away from the good intentions the other Northern states had. Their abolishment of slavery AND their statement of an individual's right to keep and bears arms proves this fact without question. This is enough to dump Bogus's "theory" into the trash heap where it belongs.

    I'll call it as I see it. People like Bogus are only interested in eliminating the 2nd Amendment because they just straight up don't like the idea of citizens owning the means to defend themselves. It has nothing to do with righting historic wrongs. Guns scare people like Bogus and they are happy to leave public safety to the police. I'm sure that works just fine for him because, as an overpaid, under-educated academic, he probably lives in a nice upper-middle-class neighborhood with low crime rates and fast police response times. Of course, he is probably also one of the people currently calling for the police to be heavily defunded or disbanded. Which, if you ask me, makes civilian gun ownership 10x more important.

    In the end, the very people that Bogus is "fighting" for are the very people who will suffer the most when only criminals have guns. They are the most at risk for home invasions and violent altercations. If you need proof, just take a look at Chicago. Stripping away gun ownership rights has not made inner-city Chicago neighborhoods safer. It has done the opposite. People like Bogus should be ashamed of their attempts to distort history and denigrate well-intentioned individuals to further erode our rights.
     
    • Like / Agree Like / Agree x 7
    • List
  6. wormcycle

    wormcycle Friend

    Friend
    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2016
    Likes Received:
    1,541
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Toronto, ON, Canada
    Even by the definition in Britannica, if you skip all the caring sharing fluff, yes the Third Reich WAS, not is, the most advanced welfare state at that time. It certainly created and maintained "a well-established network of social institutions plays a key role in the protection and promotion of the economic and social well-being of citizens ". For Germans.

    And I do not give a crap about Glen Beck.
    If you are really interested in links between fascism and the left please find out something about the ideological path travelled by one of the real authorities on the subject, Benito Mussolini.
     
    • Like / Agree Like / Agree x 1
    • List
    Last edited: Jun 22, 2020
  7. yotacowboy

    yotacowboy McRibs Kind of Guy

    Friend
    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2016
    Likes Received:
    5,689
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    NOVA
    Home Page:
    As far as I understand, Mussolini's ideological path was about as convoluted and incoherent as one might expect being he was a complete mad man.
     
    • Like / Agree Like / Agree x 2
    • List
  8. purr1n

    purr1n Building Magnis part time because it's peaceful.

    Staff Member Friend BWC
    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2015
    Likes Received:
    75,334
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Padre Island CC TX
    All this shit has been around for a long time. It's nothing new in some circles.
    • On Washington and Lincoln statues being dragged down: The issue of slavery was not addressed in the US Constitution and in fact implicitly allowed (3/5 compromise). The British around this time were already thinking that slavery was "kinda lame" and got rid of it much sooner and without aggravation. Some point out that Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in rebelling states, and that his heart really was more into saving the union rather than abolishing slavery. It's never black and white, but whatever happens, those who see things only in black and white and refuse to compromise as means to a end will never be happy. The assertion that the white dudes who founded this country were racists who saw blacks as sub-human is very probably true.
    • Confederate statues and battle flag: There's the feeling when the South lost, it was treated with kid gloves. Losers of civil wars or insurrections usually get drawn and quartered with nary of mention - a footnote in history. They don't get statues made in their honor to celebrate how chivalrous and brave they were for a lost cause and how their slaves loved being slaves as part of a "social security" program. Some people feel that the Confederates should have been tried for treason and executed.
     
    • Like / Agree Like / Agree x 3
    • List
    Last edited: Jun 22, 2020
  9. dmckean44

    dmckean44 In a Sherwood S6040CP relationship

    Friend
    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Likes Received:
    1,414
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Location:
    San Diego
    Treason for what though? The United States was designed to be a loose coalition of like minded states.

    Succession is something that should be possible, especially now that states of grown even further apart from each other and no longer able to act in their best interest. I don't think any state signed up thinking there would be no way to ever exit.

    Can you imagine if the EU when to war with Britain over Brexit?
     
    • Like / Agree Like / Agree x 1
    • List
  10. purr1n

    purr1n Building Magnis part time because it's peaceful.

    Staff Member Friend BWC
    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2015
    Likes Received:
    75,334
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Padre Island CC TX
    Just saying what some people think and how they feel. You will have to take it up with them. I know one dude in Iowa who strongly feels this way. Would be happy to send you his email so you can argue with him. I've heard these arguments forever now. It's not just now.

    I think I may have said this in a much earlier post, but the question of state's power vs federal still has not been totally decided. it goes back and forth. The Coronavirus deal is a good example of the limited reach of the Federal government, particularly when the Feds don't have a good game plan. Governors can still say fuck you. Or in some instances go blah blah blah and let the counties decide. I'm surprised that Alexander Hamilton didn't have a duel with Thomas Jefferson. Or maybe they tried, but George bitch slapped both of them so they would get in line.

    1850 Compromise settled some things in the interim, but it was clear were the nation was headed, given that Britain had totally ended slavery in 1833 and there were many questions to its morality. I'm sure the Southern states thought to themselves exactly what you stated: "Hey, we didn't sign up for this shit in 1788". They knew the writing was on the wall when the Republicans won in 1860.

    Horrible analogy. The EU isn't a political union and UK still kept their pound. Germans can still say die die, be like Germans, eat bitter, and pay us back you lazy Grecians (which they did). The South should have quit or backed-out when things started getting serious around 1787. In accepting the CT proposed compromise (two senators for every state), all they did was push forward the slavery question two generations into the future as the USA expanded.

    The US Constitution doesn't directly address secession, my reading of it says that it's implied. However, Abe Lincoln thought otherwise and one crucial fact remains: the South lost the war. Like many things in history, violence settles things.
     
    • Like / Agree Like / Agree x 3
    • List
    Last edited: Jun 22, 2020
  11. mitochondrium

    mitochondrium Friend

    Friend
    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2017
    Likes Received:
    910
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Location:
    A Cell
    o_O

    It was an agency which belonged to the party not the state. It relied on volunteers and donations. What it claimed to be is one thing but you need to look through the propaganda (term which meant advertising in German before the Nazis). No whatever Nazi Germany claimed to be it never was a welfare state.
     
  12. winders

    winders Know-it-all boomer, prob racist

    Friend CBC
    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2017
    Likes Received:
    2,250
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    San Martin, CA
  13. YMO

    YMO it's not drinking alone if you're on Zoom

    Friend
    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2018
    Likes Received:
    7,089
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    DUVALLL-904
    Thumbs down because you can't always trust the Heritage Foundation due to their strong right-wing bias. Same for the strong left-wing think tanks as well.
     
  14. winders

    winders Know-it-all boomer, prob racist

    Friend CBC
    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2017
    Likes Received:
    2,250
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    San Martin, CA
    Give me a thumbs down if the text is flawed....not because of who published it.

    Read that article and tell me that what it says does not ring true. It makes no excuses. It is factual and, based on what I have researched in the past, is accurate.
     
    • Like / Agree Like / Agree x 1
    • List
  15. yotacowboy

    yotacowboy McRibs Kind of Guy

    Friend
    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2016
    Likes Received:
    5,689
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    NOVA
    Home Page:
    I'd agree with you, except for you pointing to links at Mises.org. Google-fu and try to find for me the January 1990 edition of Liberty Magazine, where Murray Rothbard and Lew Rockwell plainly lay out the paleolibertarian "plan" to appeal to working class whites: they proposed to create the ("new" at that time) libertarian-conservative platform that was largely based on convincing working class whites that the reason "we all hate socialism" was to appeal to class distinctions based solely on race. Seems like it might've worked for a couple decades given today's news headlines.

    There's a reason you can't find those earlier Liberty Magazines. Because Mises.org stopped publishing them due to their recognition (after Ron Paul's newsletter debacle like 10 years ago) for what now would be pretty fucking racist, divisive policy prescriptions. Is that the right thing to do? I dunno. But I won't give you a thumbs down, either.

    edit: grammar and an extra thought.
     
    • Like / Agree Like / Agree x 1
    • List
    Last edited: Jun 22, 2020
  16. wormcycle

    wormcycle Friend

    Friend
    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2016
    Likes Received:
    1,541
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Toronto, ON, Canada
    Check the sources of the Wikipedia for Nazi welfare state, mostly books by American and British historians, just look at some examples. Do some homework before posting
    1. Martina Steber; Bernhard Gotto (2014). Visions of Community in Nazi Germany: Social Engineering and Private Lives. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press. pp. 93–94.
    2. ^ Michael Burleigh (2000). The Third Reich: A New History. New York City, New York: Hill and Wang. p. 247. Interview with Adolf Hitler by Louis P. Lochner, Associated Press correspondent in Berlin.
    3. ^ Götz Aly (2007). Hitler's Beneficiaries: Plunder, Racial War, and the Nazi Welfare State. New York City, New York: Metropolitan Books. p. 163.
     
    • Like / Agree Like / Agree x 1
    • List
  17. RobS

    RobS RobS? More like RobDiarrhea.

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2019
    Likes Received:
    1,881
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Location:
    .
    No substantive fact evinced by Bogus about the role of southern paranoia in the enactment of the 2nd Amendment has been rebutted. It apparently is lost on you that those facts were basically ignored by historians for 200 years.

    The indisputable facts remain:

    1. The South used militias almost exclusively to intimidate slaves and suppress slave revolts.

    2. The South was in fear that the North would take steps to make slavery untenable (the fact that the North didn't do that as aggressively or consistently as they feared is irrelevant)

    3. Therefore Southern politicians lobbied hard for the passage of the 2nd in the particular form it took (coaching it in terms of militias rather than individuals so that militias could go about their dirty work of violently suppressing slave revolts).

    4. The amendments language was even written by a Southern slaveholder preoccupied with slave revolts, and it had serious opposition from the North.

    5. The North hardly ever used militias, and the first time the president did use a militia, it was to disarm another militia: the Whiskey Rebels.

    6. The NRA narrative is false (and it is the narrative that is used by our political discourse), the 2nd Amendment was not passed to protect noble Americans from the depredations of an overreaching government. That was all window dressing for the real agenda: to intimidate, capture, punish and kill millions of slaves.
     
    • Like / Agree Like / Agree x 1
    • List
  18. Wilson

    Wilson Socially Anxious Volleyball

    Friend
    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2016
    Likes Received:
    6,516
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ha, OK man, this is going nowhere.
    Some other thoughts ... Fascist Italy more closely resembled Vichy France and Imperial Japan than Nazi Germany. Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia were the birds of a feather. Totalitarian regimes are in a class of their own. The goal is the destruction/ control of the individual using violence/ terror. I don't think welfare programs will lead to this. This country fetishizes rebellion far too much for this form of social control. Our danger lies in the realm of Brave New World rather than 1984. We keep ourselves in line, with a lot of help from the corporate welfare state. More on that later?
     
    • Like / Agree Like / Agree x 3
    • List
  19. Wilson

    Wilson Socially Anxious Volleyball

    Friend
    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2016
    Likes Received:
    6,516
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Ohio
    Just saw this - thanks for the references. I've been enjoying A World at Arms: A Global History of World War 2, Gerhard L. Weinberg
     
  20. winders

    winders Know-it-all boomer, prob racist

    Friend CBC
    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2017
    Likes Received:
    2,250
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    San Martin, CA
    If the South was in such a state of fear as you describe and had to have protection for militia, why in the world would they ratify the Constitution in 1788 with no provision to do so? The Bill or Rights was promoted by anti-federalists and the goal was to provide greater constitutional protection for individual liberties. It wasn't about rights of the States....it was about the rights of the individual.

    If the South was in such a state of fear as you describe, why even join the Union? They could have formed their own country. Congress was given the power to end slave importation after 1800 (Later changed to 1808) and did so. 10 States had already banned the practice but this was done to appease Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina. The South new all of this. If their fear level was so high, they would never have agreed to the Constitution in the first place and if militia were such a huge deal, they would have insisted that be part of the Constitution from the beginning. They certainly had the leverage to accomplish that.

    Just because the South used miltiia to control slaves does not mean that was why the 2nd Amendment was drafted.

    Just because the South had fears about the North wanting to end slavery does not mean that was why the 2nd Amendment was drafted.

    Just because James Madison wrote the 2nd Amendment, and the bulk of the Constitution, does not mean it intent was to allow the South to use militia to control slave revolts.

    The intent of the 2nd Amendment was clearly to prevent the Federal Government from disarming the population so the population could defend itself from a tyrannical government.
     
    • Like / Agree Like / Agree x 3
    • List

Share This Page