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.
Right now, everything is racist. The highways are racist, math is racist, exams are racist, stopping looters is racist, and of course, now the 2nd Amendment is racist. It's simple really. Try to keep up or you risk being labeled a racist yourself.
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.
Perhaps worthy of discussion or debate in the teachers lounge, but in the real world this doesn't mean jack squat.
That's what is crystal clear.
For people who are greatly interested in history, and the "why" of things, this is extremely interesting.
People throughout US history have wondered why this amendment was written so confusingly, where every single other thing in the constitution is crystal clear.
It's because they intended it to be confusing. They intended to obfuscate the purpose of this right to bear arms.
To me, I find it extremely interesting, when the last piece of a jigsaw puzzle is snapped into place. OH. THAT'S what the militia is for in that amendment. Makes complete sense, knowing the whole story. That year they rightfully feared a huge slave uprising.
And I do understand why 2A supporters would want to think this is of no import whatsoever. Because it's . . well, kind of embarrassing to begin with, and secondly, the amendment wasn't in fact meant to arm individuals against other individuals. Not at all.
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.
The Supreme Court disagrees with you.
Besides, if it was the intention of the Founders to limit arms to the militia, why are there no historical accounts of them enforcing that interpretation by confiscating arms from the general public?
Why go to all the trouble of codifying something in The Bill of Rights, second only to the freedom of speech...... something as obvious as the the need of the military to have weapons?
And if you meant ONLY the military, why follow it with "the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"?
Your interpretation requires that the two phrases contradict each other.
Again, if you bothered to research other writings of the Founders and other documents from the states at the time (which the Supreme Court HAS done) you'd know how ridiculous your argument is.
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.
That Party needs to take a good long look at itself and reconsider the principles on which this nation was founded.
They also need to recognize their own history.
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.
Despite the "aghast" nature of the right wingers on this thread...
The "slave revolt" considerations for inclusion of the "well regulated militia" has been known by historians for many years. And as your link claims... it makes sense.
But I guess instead we will have to continue to listen to the mental gymnastics and pretzel logic among these righties regarding why the "militia" clause is included. Especially the "well regulated" part. Right wingers wish it wasn't there. LOL.
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 is from the Massachusetts Constitution of 1780 which was the direct model for the US Constitution:
Article XVII.
The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.
At the time this was written slaves made up less than 2% of the state's population and the institution was on its last legs.
Also, I don't think John Adams was concerned with slave uprisings since he didn't own any.
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.
And the Founders intended to keep it that way.
NPR is absolutely 100% about racism and how much this nation sucks.
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.
And the fact that the militia also included able body males between 18 to 45?
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.
