Is not who's intent? It was the intent of the slavers who you quoted to me.
What I'm doing and what you seem to be failing to understand is that I'm challenging your premise, namely that the second amendment is necessary, let alone can be used to end tyranny by showing you historically that it was used to promote tyranny, not end it.
The 2A is currently the only mechanism we have if tyranny is present. Now, should we have to resort to that, one hopes that we never do. I think we can all hope that we can trust politicians, trust that our votes matter, and that our media and journalists are fair and unbiased to report facts to the American people. I hope that we can trust those who WE have entrusted our liberties and freedoms.
But, if our gov't become tyrannical and with no ability to defend ourselves from such tyranny, what protects us now? How would you overthrow that tyranny?
What you're saying is this "Militias were abused to enforce slavery therefore the 2A should be abolished". That's throwing the baby out with the bath water.
The example I gave of Black civil rights activists would seriously suggest otherwise. Tyranny here was finally ended through legislation, not violence.
Now, should we have to resort to that, one hopes that we never do. I think we can all hope that we can trust politicians, trust that our votes matter, and that our media and journalists are fair and unbiased to report facts to the American people. I hope that we can trust those who WE have entrusted our liberties and freedoms.
But, if our gov't become tyrannical and with no ability to defend ourselves from such tyranny, what protects us now? How would you overthrow that tyranny?
What you're saying is this "Militias were abused to enforce slavery therefore the 2A should be abolished". That's throwing the baby out with the bath water.
I don't know what the fuck that is but that is not what I'm saying. I don't know what the fuck you mean by abused. I'm saying the point of the second amendment wasn't to guard against tyranny but to promote it.
The example I gave of Black civil rights activists would seriously suggest otherwise. Tyranny here was finally ended through legislation, not violence.
I don't know what the fuck that is but that is not what I'm saying. I don't know what the fuck you mean by abused. I'm saying the point of the second amendment wasn't to guard against tyranny but to promote it.
Then we disagree. So I don't know what the fuck you don't understand about the purpose and intent of the 2A. Things can be abused. Capitalism can be abused, but that doesn't mean we move to communism. It means we adjust and put protections in, which we have.
You stated: "It's bad law because it's original purpose was to arm gangs of white men so they could put down the attempts of their slaves to resist their subjugation". It appears your premise is perpetuated by Carl Bogus that there was some "Hidden History" to enact the 2A so the souther states could continue to enforce, forcibly, slavery.
I am only now reading about this "premise" (which deserves it's own thread). But some research shows that Bogus is a liberal and anti 2A. The question is, was he anti-2A before his thesis, or did his research formulate his current opinion? I don't know.
Was the Second Amendment right of the people to bear arms adopted to protect liberty or to perpetrate slavery? The latter was the thesis first published by Professor Carl Bogus in a 1998 law review article “The Hidden History of the Second Amendment.” His basic argument is that the Amendment was adopted so that the Southern states could maintain mili-tias to suppress slave rebellions. New life was given to the thesis by Professor Carol Anderson in her 2021 book The Second, which asserts that the Amendment was “not some hallowed ground but rather a bribe, paid again with Black bodies.”
As Bogus concedes, no direct evidence supports the thesis. Instead, historical fact refutes it. The predecessor of the Amendment was the English Declaration of Rights of 1689, which protected the right of Protestants to have arms. England had no domestic slave population. Beginning in 1776, some states adopted bills of rights that recognized the right to bear arms. Three of them were Northern states that had abolished slavery. When the federal Constitution was proposed in 1787, it was criticized for lacking a bill of rights. Demands for recognition of the right to bear arms emanated from antifederalists, including abolitionists, in the Northern states, while several Southern states ratified with-out demanding amendments at all.
New Hampshire, whose bill of rights was read to abolish slavery, was the first state to ratify the Constitution and demand a prohibition on the disarming of citizens. The Virginia ratifying convention followed. While some supported an amendment stating that the states could maintain militias if Congress neglected the same, support for the militia was largely tied to rejection of a standing army, not maintenance of slavery. The right to bear arms was proposed in a declaration of rights that had nothing to do with slavery. New York ratified next, also proposing recognition of the arms right.
James Madison introduced what became the Second Amendment in the first federal Congress, and it worked its way through both Houses without any hint of concern for the interests of slavery. Congress rejected the separate structural amendments that included a proposal for more state powers over the militia. Rhode Island, the last of the original thirteen states to ratify the Constitution, demanded both recognition of the right to bear arms and abolition of the slave trade. Vermont was then admitted as a state—it had abolished slavery and recognized the right to bear arms in its 1777 Constitution—and it now ratified the Second Amendment.
Contrary to Bogus, no secret conspiracy was afoot to make “the right of the people” to bear arms an instrument of slavery. Instead, the abolitionists, and then the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment, would use those words to show that “the people” meant just that. African Americans were people and were thus entitled to all of the rights of Americans. The failure at the Founding was not that the rights of citizens were accorded to whites, but that these rights were not accorded to all persons without regard to race. By its very terms, the Second Amendment is a bulwark for the protection of the fundamental rights of all of the people.
Correct and one would hope, that's how we can end tyranny.
Speculation and red herring.
Then we disagree. So I don't know what the fuck you don't understand about the purpose and intent of the 2A. Things can be abused. Capitalism can be abused, but that doesn't mean we move to communism. It means we adjust and put protections in, which we have.
I'm not saying it was abused. I'm saying it was used as intended, to arm white citizens so they can put down slave revolts. And to be clear I'm not arguing that we shouldn't have a right to self defense I'm just arguing guns should be prohibited, in a rational society, from being an option in our arsenal for self defense. Let's put aside the fact that it was used to promote tyranny, allowing the proliferation of guns and all the gun violence that comes along with that on the off chance that it may be useful in some imagined scenario of opposing tyrannical rule is just a bad argument and poor exchange.
You stated: "It's bad law because it's original purpose was to arm gangs of white men so they could put down the attempts of their slaves to resist their subjugation". It appears your premise is perpetuated by Carl Bogus that there was some "Hidden History" to enact the 2A so the souther states could continue to enforce, forcibly, slavery.
I am only now reading about this "premise" (which deserves it's own thread). But some research shows that Bogus is a liberal and anti 2A. The question is, was he anti-2A before his thesis, or did his research formulate his current opinion? I don't know.
Was the Second Amendment right of the people to bear arms adopted to protect liberty or to perpetrate slavery? The latter was the thesis first published by Professor Carl Bogus in a 1998 law review article “The Hidden History of the Second Amendment.” His basic argument is that the Amendment was adopted so that the Southern states could maintain mili-tias to suppress slave rebellions. New life was given to the thesis by Professor Carol Anderson in her 2021 book The Second, which asserts that the Amendment was “not some hallowed ground but rather a bribe, paid again with Black bodies.”
As Bogus concedes, no direct evidence supports the thesis. Instead, historical fact refutes it. The predecessor of the Amendment was the English Declaration of Rights of 1689, which protected the right of Protestants to have arms. England had no domestic slave population. Beginning in 1776, some states adopted bills of rights that recognized the right to bear arms. Three of them were Northern states that had abolished slavery. When the federal Constitution was proposed in 1787, it was criticized for lacking a bill of rights. Demands for recognition of the right to bear arms emanated from antifederalists, including abolitionists, in the Northern states, while several Southern states ratified with-out demanding amendments at all.
New Hampshire, whose bill of rights was read to abolish slavery, was the first state to ratify the Constitution and demand a prohibition on the disarming of citizens. The Virginia ratifying convention followed. While some supported an amendment stating that the states could maintain militias if Congress neglected the same, support for the militia was largely tied to rejection of a standing army, not maintenance of slavery. The right to bear arms was proposed in a declaration of rights that had nothing to do with slavery. New York ratified next, also proposing recognition of the arms right.
James Madison introduced what became the Second Amendment in the first federal Congress, and it worked its way through both Houses without any hint of concern for the interests of slavery. Congress rejected the separate structural amendments that included a proposal for more state powers over the militia. Rhode Island, the last of the original thirteen states to ratify the Constitution, demanded both recognition of the right to bear arms and abolition of the slave trade. Vermont was then admitted as a state—it had abolished slavery and recognized the right to bear arms in its 1777 Constitution—and it now ratified the Second Amendment.
Contrary to Bogus, no secret conspiracy was afoot to make “the right of the people” to bear arms an instrument of slavery. Instead, the abolitionists, and then the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment, would use those words to show that “the people” meant just that. African Americans were people and were thus entitled to all of the rights of Americans. The failure at the Founding was not that the rights of citizens were accorded to whites, but that these rights were not accorded to all persons without regard to race. By its very terms, the Second Amendment is a bulwark for the protection of the fundamental rights of all of the people.
I'll address that argument right now. What liberty is he referring to in a Slave State? I don't care where those slavers got their ideas from, I'm challenging the entire rationale for the necessity of the law, especially theirs.
I'm not saying it was abused. I'm saying it was used as intended, to arm white citizens so they can put down slave revolts. And to be clear I'm not arguing that we shouldn't have a right to self defense I'm just arguing guns should be prohibited, in a rational society, from being an option in our arsenal for self defense.
Then you have more faith and trust in gov't than the founding fathers intended. We should be civil, no disagreement there. But the intent of the 2A is to protect our liberties and freedom from domestic or foreign tyranny. We can agree to disagree. That's okay.
Let's put aside the fact that it was used to promote tyranny, allowing the proliferation of guns and all the gun violence that comes along with that on the off chance that it may be useful in some imagined scenario of opposing tyrannical rule is just a bad argument and poor exchange.
The gun violence we see today is proliferated within the urban black communities who engage in criminal activities which involve the use of illegally owned and or obtained firearms. The stats don't lie.
Proliferation, remove suicide from stats, we are at about 25K deaths a year. The vast majority committed by the black community.
You and I are much more likely to die from other "proliferations" that could have even more regulations and preventions tied to them. Yet, here we are, alcohol still legal yet, people drive drunk every day. Tobacco, still legal (you'd be surprised how many deaths per year by 2nd hand tobacco). Opiods, terrible proliferation. Driving while distracted, terrible epidemic. Legalizing weed, I can't drive anywhere without smelling it, which means, more and more drivers impaired putting you and I at risk. Hundreds of thousands will die to causes we could do more to prevent. Yet, politicians and the media want us focusing on 25K a year.
Who said it was hidden? It's you who wants us to forget that Mason was arguing from the perspective of a Slaver.
I'll address that argument right now. What liberty is he referring to in a Slave State? I don't care where those slavers got their ideas from, I'm challenging the entire rationale for the necessity of the law, especially theirs.
Your entire premise is rooted in Carl Bogus' theory and writing, "Madison's Militia: "Hidden History of the 2nd Amendment". You are the first person I've heard espouse such a premise and any research I can find, the premise seems to be rooted in the previously mentioned writings of Professor Carl Bogus and then another author who tried to bring to the forefront. However research shows that there is almost no evidence to the Bogus' premise. It seems to be a anti 2A professor trying to create a false narrative.
Then you have more faith and trust in gov't than the founding fathers intended. We should be civil, no disagreement there. But the intent of the 2A is to protect our liberties and freedom from domestic or foreign tyranny. We can agree to disagree. That's okay.
1. Who cares what those slavers intended? I don't respect them or their shit beliefs or their shit culture.
2. I'm more than happy to accept for the sake of argument that that is the intent. I've shown what that intent looks like in practice, no? It looks like 150+ years of the second amendment enforcing tyranny and no examples of it over throwing tyranny.
You're arguing about what you hope to use it for and I'm showing what it was actually used for. Understand the difference?
The gun violence we see today is proliferated within the urban black communities who engage in criminal activities which involve the use of illegally owned and or obtained firearms. The stats don't lie.
Yes. Poorer, socially marginalized communities are going to have higher rates of crime and higher rates of victimization. That's not news to anyone. The availability of guns allows, the troubled, angry and marginalized portions of that community commit acts of violence they'd wouldn't otherwise be able to in other first world societies with rational gun laws.
Proliferation, remove suicide from stats, we are at about 25K deaths a year. The vast majority committed by the black community.
You and I are much more likely to die from other "proliferations" that could have even more regulations and preventions tied to them. Yet, here we are, alcohol still legal yet, people drive drunk every day. Tobacco, still legal (you'd be surprised how many deaths per year by 2nd hand tobacco). Opiods, terrible proliferation. Driving while distracted, terrible epidemic. Legalizing weed, I can't drive anywhere without smelling it, which means, more and more drivers impaired putting you and I at risk. Hundreds of thousands will die to causes we could do more to prevent. Yet, politicians and the media want us focusing on 25K a year.
Your entire premise is rooted in Carl Bogus' theory and writing, "Madison's Militia: "Hidden History of the 2nd Amendment". You are the first person I've heard espouse such a premise and any research I can find, the premise seems to be rooted in the previously mentioned writings of Professor Carl Bogus and then another author who tried to bring to the forefront. However research shows that there is almost no evidence to the Bogus' premise. It seems to be a anti 2A professor trying to create a false narrative.
Are you arguing the second amendment wasn't used to enforce slavery? Because I don't know a Bogus, I do my own arguing over these matters. I don't care where the history of the second amendment came from, I'm stating that we can't separate the fact that Mason was arguing it from the perspective of a slaver.
Are you arguing the second amendment wasn't used to enforce slavery? Because I don't know a Bogus, I do my own arguing over these matters. I don't care where the history of the second amendment came from, I'm stating that we can't separate the fact that Mason was arguing it from the perspective of a slaver.
No I am not arguing against the idea that the 2nd Amendment allowed sourthern states to be armed, who then used those arms to enforce and entrap slaves.
What I'm arguing against is your premise that southern states who were legally allowed to bear arms based on the right of the 2A means that "in practice" the 2A allowed tyranny in the southern states, therefore the 2A is bad for the nation.
No I am not arguing against the idea that the 2nd Amendment allowed sourthern states to be armed, who then used those arms to enforce and entrap slaves.
What I'm arguing against is your premise that southern states who were legally allowed to bear arms based on the right of the 2A means that "in practice" the 2A allowed tyranny in the southern states, therefore the 2A is bad for the nation.
Do something more than just repeat baby and bath water. I'm questioning the necessity of even setting the bath. Why should I accept from the start that individual gun ownership is good thing when you haven't argued that rationally?
Do something more than just repeat baby and bath water. I'm questioning the necessity of even setting the bath. Why should I accept from the start that individual gun ownership is good thing when you haven't argued that rationally
Moving the goal posts? The 2A grants the security and protection from foreign and domestic tyranny by granting the public right to bear arms. There is much history on the origins. The 2A is backed up and enforced within state constitutions. There is a lot of reading out there. Yes, militias were up to debate along with the control of militias by the state or federal gov't. However, that does not deny that fact that citizens were to be armed for protection of our civil liberties and rights.
I ask you this question. Do you trust that the gov't, no matter the political affiliation, will never become tyrannical?
Ok thats one argument. Lets examine it through the lens of history. Did it actually do that? No. It did the opposite. So why would you put forth an argument that hindsight has already mauled to death? You say it does this thing but what is your example of it ever actually doing the thing? History has shown you it doing the opposite. Protecting tyranny.
There is much history on the origins. The 2A is backed up and enforced within state constitutions. There is a lot of reading out there. Yes, militias were up to debate along with the control of militias by the state or federal gov't. However, that does not deny that fact that citizens were to be armed for protection of our civil liberties and rights.
I ask you this question. Do you trust that the gov't, no matter the political affiliation, will never become tyrannical?
No, of course not. I just don't think the cost of gun violence is worth it for the protection against tyranny it provides, which so far you haven't been able to show it providing any.
Opposite = Misuse by southern states to keep slaves enslaved is not the fault of the 2A?
Rather, it's the fault of the immoral slave owners who raked in millions on the backs of slaves. It's like blaming the gun and not the shooter. Or blaming the car, and not the drunk driver. You're making a false equivalency here.
So why would you put forth an argument that hindsight has already mauled to death? You say it does this thing but what is your example of it ever actually doing the thing? History has shown you it doing the opposite. Protecting tyranny.
Tyranny doesn't always come at the federal level. Which is why the right to bear arms is also supported by many state constitutions.
Also, the idea that the population hasn't had to take up arms in mass is probably a good thing. But here is the Battle of Athens.
\No, of course not. I just don't think the cost of gun violence is worth it for the protection against tyranny it provides, which so far you haven't been able to show it providing any.
President Trump was shot at in an attempted assassination. I have even heard that the gunman used an "AR type" weap[on, whatever that means.
Have you noticed that not one Trump supporter has called for a ban on guns, or tougher gun restrictions?
Why, well three reasons:
1. Our Constitutional rights are more important than anything else.
2. We blame the shooter, not the gun. The gun didn't crawl onto the roof and shoot at Trump.
3. We aren't idiots.
4. We aren't pussies.
Clearly, you don't understand context and only want to deflect from the point of this discussion, normally called a Red Herring.
Summary:
OP: Have you noticed that not one Trump supporter has called for a ban on guns, or tougher gun restrictions?
Gipper and Jamaican Goat Boy: Our founding fathers were slavers and initiated genocide!! - This is a red herring and genetic fallacy (also throwing the baby out with the bath water). Your arguments hold no water. But here you are, yelling at clouds. Did you get that one way ticket out of the U.S. yet?
No. Our founding principles were nonintervention and an aversion for war. If you don’t know this, I can provide you links of statements made by the Founders.
Supporting Israel unconditionally and allowing it to control our political class is utterly unacceptable. It’s treasonous. Supporting it’s genocide is a war crime.
Opposite = Misuse by southern states to keep slaves enslaved is not the fault of the 2A?
Rather, it's the fault of the immoral slave owners who raked in millions on the backs of slaves. It's like blaming the gun and not the shooter. Or blaming the car, and not the drunk driver. You're making a false equivalency here.
Tyranny doesn't always come at the federal level. Which is why the right to bear arms is also supported by many state constitutions.
Also, the idea that the population hasn't had to take up arms in mass is probably a good thing. But here is the Battle of Athens.
Do you realize that in 1946 Tennessee was an apartheid State that had enacted Jim Crow laws to disenfranchise Black voters? I understand why tyrants want guns, I'm asking you for an argument why a civilized society would have them.
The 2nd Amendment was given to us by those immoral slavers so why do you act like their beliefs are beyond reproach or question?
Do you realize that in 1946 Tennessee was an apartheid State that had enacted Jim Crow laws to disenfranchise Black voters? I understand why tyrants want guns, I'm asking you for an argument why a civilized society would have them.
