Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 4 days ago)
35,612 posts, read 17,940,183 times
Reputation: 50639
Advertisements
This makes SUCH PERFECT SENSE. Everyone has wondered what was the deal with militias - why was that mentioned in this amendment? Why is it so confusingly written? Surely, the founding fathers who were flush with pride in their brand new government, weren't trying to arm citizens against the government they worked so very hard to carefully create?
Turns out, no, they weren't trying to arm citizens against the US government. But rather, Virginia wanted to make sure they had the ability to regulate their own state militias, without interference from the federal government, to extinguish slave rebellions that they predicted would happen.
The 2nd amendment was added in 1791. The very year the Haitian Rebellion began, where slaves in Haiti rebelled (successfully) against their masters. At that moment, white people were fleeing Haiti with their slaves, and coming to Virginia. The Virginians were rightfully worried that these new Haitian slaves being brought in would organize a rebellion and overthrow the state.
Makes such crystal clear, perfect sense. Like the police forces in the south that were begun with the entire focus of locating and returning runaway slaves, 2A was designed to extinguish a slave rebellion.
Maybe it was written to allow a militia to be formed to squash a slave rebellion but then again the Revolutionary war was fought with the Continental army and militias against the tyrannical Government of England.
In a town near me during the War of 1812 they refused to pay the British ransom and when troops landed to attack and destroy the militia successfully fought back and forced them back onto their ships.
The Founding Fathers were very concerned that a President could become a King and they tried their best to prevent this from happening. The Second amendment was part of this prevention plan. Fast forward to today and which party has been trying for decades to disarm the public and prevent possible militias? It is ironic that it is the same party that was pro slavery...
Who are the real tyrants here? The Second Amendment is fine just as it is.
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 4 days ago)
35,612 posts, read 17,940,183 times
Reputation: 50639
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cape Cod Todd
Maybe it was written to allow a militia to be formed to squash a slave rebellion but then again the Revolutionary war was fought with the Continental army and militias against the tyrannical Government of England.
In a town near me during the War of 1812 they refused to pay the British ransom and when troops landed to attack and destroy the militia successfully fought back and forced them back onto their ships.
The Founding Fathers were very concerned that a President could become a King and they tried their best to prevent this from happening. The Second amendment was part of this prevention plan. Fast forward to today and which party has been trying for decades to disarm the public and prevent possible militias? It is ironic that it is the same party that was pro slavery...
Who are the real tyrants here? The Second Amendment is fine just as it is.
This isn't an argument necessarily against 2A. It just explains the almost universal curiosity about why the word "militia" was inserted there, instead of how 2A is used now, for personal, individual freedom to bear arms.
I've never understood that, until now, that 2A was in fact intended to protect sanctioned state militias against slaves, and not individual rights for self-protection against other individuals.
2A says nothing whatsoever about each individual citizen should have the right to bear arms, and protect himself against threats to life and limb. It also says nothing about groups of militias protecting themselves against state sponsored tyranny, which is what people have guessed maybe that was the purpose of the amendment. It's not.
We've just morphed it to cover individuals, and not "well-regulated militias", which it was clearly intended to protect. Against predicted slave revolutions in Virginia. And not originally intended to protect some guy walking around in a protest carrying an openly visible firearm.
This makes SUCH PERFECT SENSE. Everyone has wondered what was the deal with militias - why was that mentioned in this amendment? Why is it so confusingly written? Surely, the founding fathers who were flush with pride in their brand new government, weren't trying to arm citizens against the government they worked so very hard to carefully create?
Turns out, no, they weren't trying to arm citizens against the US government. But rather, Virginia wanted to make sure they had the ability to regulate their own state militias, without interference from the federal government, to extinguish slave rebellions that they predicted would happen.
The 2nd amendment was added in 1791. The very year the Haitian Rebellion began, where slaves in Haiti rebelled (successfully) against their masters. At that moment, white people were fleeing Haiti with their slaves, and coming to Virginia. The Virginians were rightfully worried that these new Haitian slaves being brought in would organize a rebellion and overthrow the state.
Makes such crystal clear, perfect sense. Like the police forces in the south that were begun with the entire focus of locating and returning runaway slaves, 2A was designed to extinguish a slave rebellion.
Again, take a look at other writings, laws and state constitutions of the time.
When you take the whole of that available information, it's clear that the spirit and intention of the 2nd amendment was to put the people on equal footing with the government.
Lest you conveniently forget, the Founders had just fought a war against a tyrannical government in order to form their own country.
That war was won in no small part because the general public was armed.
This makes SUCH PERFECT SENSE. Everyone has wondered what was the deal with militias - why was that mentioned in this amendment? Why is it so confusingly written? Surely, the founding fathers who were flush with pride in their brand new government, weren't trying to arm citizens against the government they worked so very hard to carefully create?
Turns out, no, they weren't trying to arm citizens against the US government. But rather, Virginia wanted to make sure they had the ability to regulate their own state militias, without interference from the federal government, to extinguish slave rebellions that they predicted would happen.
The 2nd amendment was added in 1791. The very year the Haitian Rebellion began, where slaves in Haiti rebelled (successfully) against their masters. At that moment, white people were fleeing Haiti with their slaves, and coming to Virginia. The Virginians were rightfully worried that these new Haitian slaves being brought in would organize a rebellion and overthrow the state.
Makes such crystal clear, perfect sense. Like the police forces in the south that were begun with the entire focus of locating and returning runaway slaves, 2A was designed to extinguish a slave rebellion.
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 4 days ago)
35,612 posts, read 17,940,183 times
Reputation: 50639
Quote:
Originally Posted by FatBob96
So, the 2nd amendment is racist?
You folks are certifiable.
Again, take a look at other writings, laws and state constitutions of the time.
When you take the whole of that available information, it's clear that the spirit and intention of the 2nd amendment was to put the people on equal footing with the government.
Lest you conveniently forget, the Founders had just fought a war against a tyrannical government in order to for their own country.
That war was won in no small part because the general public was armed.
And the Founders intended to keep it that way.
Well, what do you think.
If it was intended to protect slaveholders against an uprising, would you call that racist? By definition, yes.
For a student of history, fatbob, you don't seem inclined to explore this thoughtfully. BTW - no founders of a government, who fought hard to develop their country, immediately turn around and hand a weapon to destroy themselves to their citizenry. That's why it's been so baffling as to why 2A was written that way.
Because, well, it wasn't a right to bear arms against the government. It was a right to bear arms against their slaves if needed.
This isn't an argument necessarily against 2A. It just explains the almost universal curiosity about why the word "militia" was inserted there, instead of how 2A is used now, for personal, individual freedom to bear arms.
I've never understood that, until now, that 2A was in fact intended to protect sanctioned state militias against slaves, and not individual rights for self-protection against other individuals.
2A says nothing whatsoever about each individual citizen should have the right to bear arms, and protect himself against threats to life and limb. It also says nothing about groups of militias protecting themselves against state sponsored tyranny, which is what people have guessed maybe that was the purpose of the amendment. It's not.
We've just morphed it to cover individuals, and not "well-regulated militias", which it was clearly intended to protect. Against predicted slave revolutions in Virginia. And not originally intended to protect some guy walking around in a protest carrying an openly visible firearm.
Where else in the Constitution or Bill of Rights does the phrase "the people" not mean "the people" as in individuals?
If it was intended to protect slaveholders against an uprising, would you call that racist? By definition, yes.
For a student of history, fatbob, you don't seem inclined to explore this thoughtfully. BTW - no founders of a government, who fought hard to develop their country, immediately turn around and hand a weapon to destroy themselves to their citizenry. That's why it's been so baffling as to why 2A was written that way.
Because, well, it wasn't a right to bear arms against the government. It was a right to bear arms against their slaves if needed.
For a student of history Clara C, you seem awfully anxious to assume that correlation equals causation.
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 4 days ago)
35,612 posts, read 17,940,183 times
Reputation: 50639
Quote:
Originally Posted by FatBob96
Where else in the Constitution or Bill of Rights does the phrase "the people" not mean "the people" as in individuals?
When it's referring to them as a "well-regulated militia". These were run by states, and not the federal government.
You don't see the first amendment stating:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Let this sit on you for awhile. THAT'S why 2A mentions a well-regulated militia. THAT'S why. Because it's about the right of the state militia of virginia, and not about Joe Homeowner protecting his house from an intruder.
a 6 month old interview with a Black professor and author whose writing covers the Black experience, about her new book. Maybe ClaraC bought it.
17 original amendments, 12 of which passed Congress, 10 of which were ratified by the People.
as to your/the author's timeline & relation to the Haitian Rebellion...
Quote:
On June 8, 1789, Representative James Madison introduced a series of proposed amendments to the newly ratified U.S. Constitution. That summer the House of Representatives debated Madison’s proposal, and on August 24 the House passed 17 amendments to be added to the Constitution. Those 17 amendments were then sent to the Senate.
On September 2, the Senate began considering amendments to the Constitution as proposed and passed in the House. They altered and consolidated the House amendments into 12 articles on September 9, 1789 to make up the document below.
On September 25, Congress agreed upon the 12 amendments, and they were sent to the states for approval. Articles three through twelve were ratified and became the Bill of Rights on December 15, 1791.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
