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.
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.
Everything is racist when your entire political philosophy necessitates looking at everything through the lense of race.
The amendment is only confusing to those who don't like what it very plainly says.
You have to remember that the Colonies had no standing armies at the time.....the people WERE the militia.
Let's take and rearrange the wording of the 2nd amendment a bit, shall we?
Stated thusly:
"A well regulated system of schools, being necessary to the education of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed".
Does that sentence mean that only schools and teachers can have books?
Does it mean that the type of books that the people may have should be "regulated"?
Does it mean that the people may only have books if they are actually in school?
No......it means none of those things.
See Clara, the logic you are attempting to use here is not unique.
You didn't suddenly discover some hidden detail or meaning that thousands of others who wish to deny the meaning of the 2A haven't already run up the flagpole.
Nobody is saluting...... because we've been there and done that a thousand times.
Everything is racist when your entire political philosophy necessitates looking at everything through the lense of race.
The amendment is only confusing to those who don't like what it very plainly says.
You have to remember that the Colonies had no standing armies at the time.....the people WERE the militia.
Let's take and rearrange the wording of the 2nd amendment a bit, shall we?
Stated thusly:
"A well regulated system of schools, being necessary to the education of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed".
Does that sentence mean that only schools and teachers can have books?
Does it mean that the type of books that the people may have should be "regulated"?
Does it mean that the people may only have books if they are actually in school?
No......it means none of those things.
See Clara, the logic you are attempting to use here is not unique.
You didn't suddenly discover some hidden detail or meaning that thousands of others who wish to deny the meaning of the 2A haven't already run up the flagpole.
Nobody is saluting...... because we've been there and done that a thousand times.
If you can't stare truth in the eye, and still love your country, maybe your love of your country is based on nothing?
I can stare truth in the eye, and still think the US is the greatest country on the planet, and pledge allegiance to it. Apparently some have to deny reality, and sugar coat your nation's history, in order to feel patriotic.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddie gein
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.
I shall repeat. The Haitian Revolution was in 1791.
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, (1789) 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.
if you 2 Constitutional scholars want to go to the writings and debates from 1787-1789, and find notations of objection from Virginia delegates regarding "slave riots", by all means go ahead.
Just please quickly drop that they were considering an unknown future Haitian rebellion when they did this.
Everything is racist when your entire political philosophy necessitates looking at everything through the lense of race.
The amendment is only confusing to those who don't like what it very plainly says.
...
See Clara, the logic you are attempting to use here is not unique.
You didn't suddenly discover some hidden detail or meaning that thousands of others who wish to deny the meaning of the 2A haven't already run up the flagpole.
Nobody is saluting...... because we've been there and done that a thousand times.
you mean, like the author of the book making the claim, that NPR interviewed 6 months ago and ClaraC found today?
Perhaps I used too many words in my initial response so let me try to reduce my thoughts.
We have the regular branches of the military, the Coast Guard, the National Guard and if needed the militias could be formed and who are the militias made up of? The individual citizens. Of course war has changed since the late 1700's but back when the Second Amendment was penned getting as many guns on the battle field as possible usually made the difference.
If we were attacked today and the military branches failed we would no doubt see militia groups pop up to fill the gaps and work a resistance against the invaders.
I still say the Second A. was written to keep the idea of America safe from possible tyrants both foreign and domestic and not to defend against possible slave uprisings.
So things haven't changed. We still need to arm ourselves against BLM attackers.
If successful at de-funding the police we may need to arm ourselves against all attackers. We will be returned to the days of the wild West, where as, there's a sheriff in town asleep under his hat, sitting behind a desk.
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.
You have no understanding of the 2nd Amendment nor what the words even mean.
You ought to look at the historical use of the wording at the time in which it was written,
"Here was a Black man who was pulled over by the police, and the police officer asked to see his identification. Philando Castile, using the NRA guidelines, alerts to the officer that he has a licensed weapon with him," she says. "[And] the police officer began shooting."
Who believes it really happened as described here? A cop pulls over a black guy and upon finding out he has a licensed weapon in the car, just starts shooting? No other actions happened? Is there any proof of this? If not, there's no way to know what happened, yet the quote is presented as fact in the article.
And ClaraC, who is a "truth seeker", sees no reason to question this narrative.
From the article:
"The language of the (second) amendment, Anderson says, was crafted to ensure that slave owners could quickly crush any rebellion or resistance from those whom they'd enslaved."
So we are just going to take as an article of faith that crushing possible slave rebellions was more of a driver for the second amendment language than the fact that people were subjects of a tyrannical monarchy. I think the language was intentionally left vague in order to cover any situation where people were going to have to defend themselves from any future oppression. And as such, there is a lot of meaning you can overlay on the second amendment. What ClaraC chooses to be her truth is that the second amendment was crafted to control slaves. It makes perfect sense to her. And, make no mistake, she still loves this country, she just wants you to understand the lengths that the founding fathers took, not to protect freedom, but to protect the institution of slavery. LOL.
So let's walk the dog with this kind of thinking. What's next after declaring he second amendment as an enabler of slavery? I'll give you one guess.
Cheers.
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.
