The real history of gun rights that Americans are not taught.

[the other mike]

Basically, the Second Amendment was about killing Indians, taking their land and controlling the slave population, according to author and historian Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz.

For the record I think we need to protect the 2nd amendment,
including assault weapons, so I disagree with her there, but I still believe in being honest about our past.

You’ll have heard it said by many liberals and even progressives that the Second Amendment centers on arming militias in a post-colonial America. But the reality behind the legal statute that enshrined gun rights in the Constitution is more nuanced, and far more sinister. As Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz notes in her book, “Loaded: A Disarming History of the Second Amendment,” the arming of state militias (which ultimately became the National Guard) was already noted elsewhere in the Constitution, so why was there a need to stipulate the right to bear arms in the Bill of Rights, which pertains to individuals? That’s because, according to Dunbar-Ortiz, the Second Amendment can be traced directly back to settler colonialism.

https://www.truthdig.com/articles/lies-liberals-tell-themselves-about-the-second-amendment/

 

[Wyatt earp]

So?


.

 

[the other mike]

So?


.

What's your point ? No thoughts at all except
, duh ...so ?!

 

[Bob Blaylock]

It's a blatant, ridiculous lie that the left wrong trots out every so often, trying to tie the right to bear arms to slavery, racism, and genocide; to suggest that to this day, those who support this right do so for racist reasons.

The truth is that it is the denial of this right that is rooted in racism. The earliest gun control laws in this country were enacted at the behest of the Ku Klux Klan, and were specifically crafted to disarm free black people, in order to make them safer and easier prey for the KKK.

 

[fncceo]

Well, there are still Indians out there... what's your point?

 

[Auld Phart]

Basically, the Second Amendment was about killing Indians, taking their land and controlling the slave population, according to author and historian Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz.

You’ll have heard it said by many liberals and even progressives that the Second Amendment centers on arming militias in a post-colonial America. But the reality behind the legal statute that enshrined gun rights in the Constitution is more nuanced, and far more sinister. As Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz notes in her book, “Loaded: A Disarming History of the Second Amendment,” the arming of state militias (which ultimately became the National Guard) was already noted elsewhere in the Constitution, so why was there a need to stipulate the right to bear arms in the Bill of Rights, which pertains to individuals? That’s because, according to Dunbar-Ortiz, the Second Amendment can be traced directly back to settler colonialism.

https://www.truthdig.com/articles/lies-liberals-tell-themselves-about-the-second-amendment/

As Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz notes in her book, “Loaded: A Disarming History of the Second Amendment,” the arming of state militias (which ultimately became the National Guard) was already noted elsewhere in the Constitution,

it was noted elsewhere in the Constitution?

Was it 'noted' BEFORE the 2nd Amendment?

 

[deannalw]

Well, there are still Indians out there... what's your point?

We missed some.

 

[fncceo]

Well, there are still Indians out there... what's your point?

We missed some.

Then we still need gun rights. QED.

 

[the other mike]

it was noted elsewhere in the Constitution?

Was it 'noted' BEFORE the 2nd Amendment?

100 years before under the states actually( 13 colonies)....

Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz: You know, it was already in the constitutions of Virginia, South Carolina, Massachusetts, about five of the colonies, of the 13 colonies. You know, they were formed, the states were formed in 1775, 1776, and it was a whole decade later before the Constitution. During the war, they operated under the Continental Congress. So they already had these, and they had imported them from their colonial practices. So what you have to look at, since they didn’t really argue about the matter of the Second Amendment, why they put it in under the rights of men, individual rights–and second only to freedom of speech–is, you have to look at what was going on at the time. And this was a country, a nation state, formed as an imperialist state, as a kind of knockoff from the British empire. So you have to see it as pushing, as a split in the empire, and the beginning of another one, and not some kind of democratic–it was a republic only because they overthrew a king, and you know, they talked about having another king. But George Washington–our presidency is more or less a kind of operative kingship, the executive. But what they imported was the already practice of settler militias organizing themselves. And they were very well-regulated, with great motivation, because that’s how settler colonialism works. They take the land, and then the federal government is set up basically to then indemnify it, legalize it. And that’s the story of the next hundred years, and the United States taking the continent.

 

[BULLDOG]

So?


.

What's your point ? No thoughts at all except
, duh ...so ?!

For the record I think we need to protect the 2nd amendment,
including assault weapons, so I disagree with her there, but I still believe in being honest about our past.

So the NRA is against background checks because they are afraid of Indian attacks?

 

[deannalw]

Well, there are still Indians out there... what's your point?

We missed some.

Then we still need gun rights. QED.

Exactly!!

Plus, I gotta take out some armadillo critters in the woods out back.

 

[Wyatt earp]

So?


.

What's your point ? No thoughts at all except
, duh ...so ?!

For the record I think we need to protect the 2nd amendment,
including assault weapons, so I disagree with her there, but I still believe in being honest about our past.

So the NRA is against background checks because they are afraid of Indian attacks?

Where does it say that in one of our rights?

.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Well, there are still Indians out there... what's your point?

We missed some.

Was thinking of the same thing, these guys and trying to take history out of context is ridiculous.

.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

So the NRA is against background checks because they are afraid of Indian attacks?

 

[progressive hunter]

So?


.

What's your point ? No thoughts at all except
, duh ...so ?!

For the record I think we need to protect the 2nd amendment,
including assault weapons, so I disagree with her there, but I still believe in being honest about our past.

So the NRA is against background checks because they are afraid of Indian attacks?

sorry the NRA is not against background checks and most other gun laws on the books,,,

theyre frauds,,,

 

[BULLDOG]

So?


.

What's your point ? No thoughts at all except
, duh ...so ?!

For the record I think we need to protect the 2nd amendment,
including assault weapons, so I disagree with her there, but I still believe in being honest about our past.

So the NRA is against background checks because they are afraid of Indian attacks?

Where does it say that in one of our rights?

.

Just going by claims made in the OP

 

[Auld Phart]

it was noted elsewhere in the Constitution?

Was it 'noted' BEFORE the 2nd Amendment?

100 years before under the states actually( 13 colonies)....

Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz: You know, it was already in the constitutions of Virginia, South Carolina, Massachusetts, about five of the colonies, of the 13 colonies. You know, they were formed, the states were formed in 1775, 1776, and it was a whole decade later before the Constitution. During the war, they operated under the Continental Congress. So they already had these, and they had imported them from their colonial practices. So what you have to look at, since they didn’t really argue about the matter of the Second Amendment, why they put it in under the rights of men, individual rights–and second only to freedom of speech–is, you have to look at what was going on at the time. And this was a country, a nation state, formed as an imperialist state, as a kind of knockoff from the British empire. So you have to see it as pushing, as a split in the empire, and the beginning of another one, and not some kind of democratic–it was a republic only because they overthrew a king, and you know, they talked about having another king. But George Washington–our presidency is more or less a kind of operative kingship, the executive. But what they imported was the already practice of settler militias organizing themselves. And they were very well-regulated, with great motivation, because that’s how settler colonialism works. They take the land, and then the federal government is set up basically to then indemnify it, legalize it. And that’s the story of the next hundred years, and the United States taking the continent.

Cute

Because it was covered in a half dozen or so state Constitutions, it should have been left out the National Constitution?

Archie had a name for people like that.

 

[Wyatt earp]

So?


.

What's your point ? No thoughts at all except
, duh ...so ?!

For the record I think we need to protect the 2nd amendment,
including assault weapons, so I disagree with her there, but I still believe in being honest about our past.

So the NRA is against background checks because they are afraid of Indian attacks?

sorry the NRA is not against background checks and most other gun laws on the books,,,

theyre frauds,,,

Say what? The NRA always uses the 2nd amendment to fight any type of gun law.

.

 

[BULLDOG]

So?


.

What's your point ? No thoughts at all except
, duh ...so ?!

For the record I think we need to protect the 2nd amendment,
including assault weapons, so I disagree with her there, but I still believe in being honest about our past.

So the NRA is against background checks because they are afraid of Indian attacks?

sorry the NRA is not against background checks and most other gun laws on the books,,,

theyre frauds,,,

Yes they are. They have fought every effort to enact universal background checks.

 

[Wyatt earp]

it was noted elsewhere in the Constitution?

Was it 'noted' BEFORE the 2nd Amendment?

100 years before under the states actually( 13 colonies)....

Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz: You know, it was already in the constitutions of Virginia, South Carolina, Massachusetts, about five of the colonies, of the 13 colonies. You know, they were formed, the states were formed in 1775, 1776, and it was a whole decade later before the Constitution. During the war, they operated under the Continental Congress. So they already had these, and they had imported them from their colonial practices. So what you have to look at, since they didn’t really argue about the matter of the Second Amendment, why they put it in under the rights of men, individual rights–and second only to freedom of speech–is, you have to look at what was going on at the time. And this was a country, a nation state, formed as an imperialist state, as a kind of knockoff from the British empire. So you have to see it as pushing, as a split in the empire, and the beginning of another one, and not some kind of democratic–it was a republic only because they overthrew a king, and you know, they talked about having another king. But George Washington–our presidency is more or less a kind of operative kingship, the executive. But what they imported was the already practice of settler militias organizing themselves. And they were very well-regulated, with great motivation, because that’s how settler colonialism works. They take the land, and then the federal government is set up basically to then indemnify it, legalize it. And that’s the story of the next hundred years, and the United States taking the continent.

Cute

Because it was covered in a half dozen or so state Constitutions, it should have been left out the National Constitution?

Archie had a name for people like that.

View attachment 265634

I am glad someone read it, because I sure wasn't going too, knowing the history and biased of the OP.