The Ugly Racial Truth About the Wording of the 2nd Amendment

Discussion in 'Race Relations/Racism' started by Asclepias, Jun 9, 2016.

  1. Asclepias
    Offline

    Asclepias Work Hard Play Hard

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2013
    Messages:
    74,159
    Thanks Received:
    6,203
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Location:
    Breathing rarified air.
    Ratings:
    +21,329
    Everybody is up in arms about gun control and lots of people are citing (or rather misreading) the 2nd amendment. i got curious as to the wording and found out that the 2nd amendment was worded to be a state right instead of a federal right simply because of the fear of white southerners such as Patrick Henry. In short the 2nd amendment is largely based on slave militias and the power of the state to arm them.

    The Second Amendment was Ratified to Preserve Slavery


    "If the country be invaded, a state may go to war, but cannot suppress [slave] insurrections [under this new Constitution]. If there should happen an insurrection of slaves, the country cannot be said to be invaded. They cannot, therefore, suppress it without the interposition of Congress . . . . Congress, and Congress only [under this new Constitution], can call forth the militia."

    And why was that such a concern for Patrick Henry?

    "In this state," he said, "there are two hundred and thirty-six thousand blacks, and there are many in several other states. But there are few or none in the Northern States. . . . May Congress not say, that every black man must fight? Did we not see a little of this last war? We were not so hard pushed as to make emancipation general; but acts of Assembly passed that every slave who would go to the army should be free."
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  2. tinydancer
    Offline

    tinydancer Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2010
    Messages:
    48,463
    Thanks Received:
    11,588
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Sundown
    Ratings:
    +31,801
    And the 14th was ratified to allow the Freed Man the right to bear arms.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  3. tinydancer
    Offline

    tinydancer Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2010
    Messages:
    48,463
    Thanks Received:
    11,588
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Sundown
    Ratings:
    +31,801
    The Radical Republicans who advanced the Thirteenth Amendment hoped to ensure broad civil and human rights for the newly freed people—but its scope was disputed before it even went into effect.

    The framers of the Fourteenth Amendment wanted these principles enshrined in the Constitution to protect the new Civil Rights Act from being declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and also to prevent a future Congress from altering it by a mere majority vote.

    This section was also in response to violence against black people within the Southern States. The Joint Committee on Reconstruction found that only a Constitutional amendment could protect black people's rights and welfare within those states.

    Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
     
  4. tinydancer
    Offline

    tinydancer Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2010
    Messages:
    48,463
    Thanks Received:
    11,588
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Sundown
    Ratings:
    +31,801
    I'm so glad you brought this up because so many don't have a grip on the landmark ruling by the Supreme Court on McDonald vs Chicago. McDonald being an African American fought this all the way to the top and won.

    And the key here is not just that the SCOTUS ruled on the Second but lo and behold they cited the Fourteenth. YAY!

    "Writing for the majority, Justice Alito held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller.

    Writing a concurring opinion, Justice Thomas reached the same conclusion regarding the incorporation issue on different grounds: Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The majority decision also reaffirmed that certain firearms restrictions mentioned in District of Columbia v. Heller are assumed permissible and not directly dealt with in this case. Such restrictions include those to "prohibit...the possession of firearms by felons or mentally ill" and "laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms"

    McDonald v. City of Chicago - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  5. tinydancer
    Offline

    tinydancer Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2010
    Messages:
    48,463
    Thanks Received:
    11,588
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Sundown
    Ratings:
    +31,801
    My hero and he should be everybody's hero. Mr. Otis McDonald. He beat Chicago.

    [​IMG]

    McDonald v. Chicago
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  6. Asclepias
    Offline

    Asclepias Work Hard Play Hard

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2013
    Messages:
    74,159
    Thanks Received:
    6,203
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Location:
    Breathing rarified air.
    Ratings:
    +21,329
    I agree but that has nothing to do with the OP.
     
  7. tinydancer
    Offline

    tinydancer Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2010
    Messages:
    48,463
    Thanks Received:
    11,588
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Sundown
    Ratings:
    +31,801
    I went to your link and read it thru with interest. It's quite biased unfortunately in their interpretations as shown quite clearly in the very last paragraph.

    "Little did Madison realize that one day in the future weapons-manufacturing corporations, newly defined as "persons" by a Supreme Court some have called dysfunctional, would use his slave patrol militia amendment to protect their "right" to manufacture and sell assault weapons used to murder schoolchildren."

    Disappointing because the author does bring up some interesting quotes. But because of the bias I'm going to take the time over the next few days and attempt to understand absolutely everything in context.

    Thought provoking though.
     
  8. Asclepias
    Offline

    Asclepias Work Hard Play Hard

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2013
    Messages:
    74,159
    Thanks Received:
    6,203
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Location:
    Breathing rarified air.
    Ratings:
    +21,329
    I agree its a little biased but are you seriously trying to claim you didnt read the quotes by Henry and Madison speaking about Black slaves in the OP?
     
  9. Markle
    Online

    Markle Gold Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2016
    Messages:
    7,771
    Thanks Received:
    1,042
    Trophy Points:
    275
    Location:
    Tallahassee, FL
    Ratings:
    +4,615
    [​IMG]
     
  10. flacaltenn
    Offline

    flacaltenn Senior Mod Staff Member Senior USMB Moderator Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2011
    Messages:
    40,052
    Thanks Received:
    6,362
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Location:
    Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
    Ratings:
    +21,433
    This analysis is a bit weak. THere was never an intent for Congress to retain militias -- they ALWAYS were under the purview of the Individual States. Just like it states in the 2nd Amendment.

    Then in Article 8 of the Constitution, the terms and conditions for the FEDS calling up the militias are clearly laid out.

    To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

    To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

    Guess to make this "theory" fly -- you'd have to have some previous draft or proof that there was EVER serious consideration of Federalizing the militias. And therefore -- arming citizens was EVER for the benefit of the US and NOT the states.
     

Share This Page

Search tags for this page

content