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.
2nd Amendment a guarantee that Virginia Militias could quash slave rebellions
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClaraC
This makes SUCH PERFECT SENSE.
TRANSLATION: I have no proof of any of this, and not even very much evidence beyond a few coincidences. But I really like the way it sounds. It helps me hate hate hate people who support normal people's gun rights, so it must be true.
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 15 days ago)
35,653 posts, read 18,015,765 times
Reputation: 50698
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roboteer
2nd Amendment a guarantee that Virginia Militias could quash slave rebellions
TRANSLATION: I have no proof of any of this, and not even very much evidence beyond a few coincidences. But I really like the way it sounds. It helps me hate hate hate people who support normal people's gun rights, so it must be true.
I'm not hating anyone. Geez louise.
I'm saying, that what has puzzled me greatly when I look at the constitution, and what in fact continues to baffle constitutional SCHOLARS (which I don't consider myself, but respect those who are), will say this is one hell of a confusing way to say people should be able to privately own guns.
Because, that's not what it's trying to say.
And it's anyone's guess why it isn't worded like this:
"To provide for the general safety of the public and individuals, state militias and private individuals as well as recognized peacekeeping and military forces shall be allowed to own and bear arms".
They don't bother, though, to make it that clear. Because they didn't want to.
And so here we are, hundreds of years later still scratching our heads over this, unlike any of the other amendments which are clear.
No, I'm not discounting that the founding fathers wanted personal gun ownership.
What has baffled me - for decades - is the wording of this amendment. Why not just say "For the security and safety of our citizens, private gun ownership and the right to carry arms will not be infringed"?
Why not say that? I know now why. Because they wanted state militias specifically to be able to be regulated by the state, and no one else, and the militia's ability to take up arms together against a common foe wouldn't be curtailed. They wanted to be SURE the state could decide to quell a slave uprising, using the state militia.
Sorry if this has been asked already, but why is it that the govt found it necessary to codify something in the constitution to squelch a slave rebellion? I think the logical weakness in your OP is the notion that such a drastic act would be necessary for such a specific event.
But it would appear that you've jammed your puzzle pieces to make it fit your vision. If you are genuinely curious, actually read the history of the constitution and the folks who wrote it and what their opinions were about militias, guns, the people, and government. I think you'll get far closer to what the founding fathers really meant vs simply associating events until you find something that sounds pleasing to your ear.
e.g.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 15 days ago)
35,653 posts, read 18,015,765 times
Reputation: 50698
Quote:
Originally Posted by austinnerd
Sorry if this has been asked already, but why is it that the govt found it necessary to codify something in the constitution to squelch a slave rebellion? I think the logical weakness in your OP is the notion that such a drastic act would be necessary for such a specific event.
But it would appear that you've jammed your puzzle pieces to make it fit your vision. If you are genuinely curious, actually read the history of the constitution and the folks who wrote it and what their opinions were about militias, guns, the people, and government. I think you'll get far closer to what the founding fathers really meant vs simply associating events until you find something that sounds pleasing to your ear.
e.g.
*shrug* I wasn't the one who wrote the mainstream article.
The electoral collage voting system counted slaves as three-fifths of a person because the south population had a minority of white people they used slaves to boost their population numbers yet slaves were not able to vote.
Lot of decisions back then had to do with slavery because in those days it was main labor force used.
2nd amendment "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Doesn't give unlimited power to anyone own anything.
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.
I've always wondered - since high school when my civics teacher marveled at the beauty of the constitution, at how very clear and concise it is, EXCEPT this one amendment. (BTW, he was a former cop, and a strong believer in the right to own and bear arms).
But he was truly baffled at the language in that amendment. It's not clear. It's not only unclear, it's actually not grammatically correct. It's obfuscating what it's trying to say, on purpose, and I never knew why until now.
Now I know.
Now I know what that one phrase is the only unclear one in the entire document, was trying to accomplish.
Because they were trying to hide the purpose of the amendment, while making darn sure the intent would allow for the result they wanted. The ability of slaveowners to be able to quash their attempts to free themselves.
None of this even makes any sense. Any simple phrase declaring a right to bear arms would ensure that slaveowners had the right to own guns. What need would there be for crafting what you describe as an unclear statement that hides its true meaning?
My OP wasn't a post calling for the abolition, or even a slight changing of the rights to keep and bear arms.
The entirety of my opinion here, is that thank god now we know what in the world the amendment was referring to a well-regulated militia for.
There are beneficial things that come out of darkness, or accidental positives that come out of mistakes, certainly. And I'm not opining on whether 2A is one of those results.
Merely having a Nancy Drew moment. AHA! THAT'S why the militia, and not private property owners, are referenced in 2A.
One more time.....
Private property owners.... THE PEOPLE were the Militia
There was no reason to separate the two because there was no difference between the two.
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.
Your little epiphany is so darling. Of course, Clara ... it was about racism all along. This really ties up your world view with a nice bow.
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.
