No, slavery was not the reason for the 2nd Amendment, they even have to lie about this...facts don't support anything they believe.

[EvilEyeFleegle]

I can't find the exact idiot, but one of the anti-gun extremists in a different thread posted an alleged quote by Madison or one of the other Founders saying that they needed slave patrols or something.......all in an attempt to smear the Founders and the 2nd Amendment as supporting slavery, when, in fact....gun control, not the 2nd Amendment, supported slavery and racism...

But to make the claim that the Second Amendment was added to the Constitution to placate slave owners, Anderson is impelled to take numerous shortcuts. Take, for example, this pivotal sentence in the book:

“In short, James Madison, the Virginian, knew ‘that the militia’s prime function in his state, and throughout the south, was slave control.’”

The author frames the quote as if Madison, the author of the Bill of Rights, had said it himself — or, if we’re being generous, that it’s a fair representation of his views. When you follow the book’s endnote, however, it leads to a 1998 paper titled “The Hidden History of the Second Amendment,” written by anti-gun activist Carl T. Bogus, who shares Anderson’s thesis. It is his quote. Nowhere does Bogus offer any sample of Madison declaring, or even implying, that slave control was the impetus for the Second Amendment.
---------------
After all, gun control was inextricably tied to racism in the 19th and 20th centuries.

In 1834, the State of Tennessee revised its constitution from “That the freemen of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence” to “That the free white men of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence.” A number of Southern states followed suit.

Which is one of the reasons that Michigan senator Jacob Howard, when introducing the 14th Amendment ensuring that the constitutional rights of blacks in the South were protected, specifically pointed to “the personal rights guaranteed and secured by the first eight amendments to the Constitution,” as in the freedom of speech and of the press and “the right to bear arms” (italics mine).
---------

Fredrick Douglass reacted to the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 by editorializing that the best remedy would be “a good revolver, a steady hand, and a determination to shoot down any man attempting to kidnap.” The late-19th-century civil-rights leader Ida B. Wells argued that one of the lessons of the post–Civil War era, “which every Afro American should ponder well, is that a Winchester rifle should have a place of honor in every black home, and it should be used for that protection which the law refuses to give.” T. Thomas Fortune, another black civil-rights activist of the era, argued that it was with a Winchester that the black man could “defend his home and children and wife.”

The 1619 Project Comes for the Second Amendment | National Review

If the right to bear arms was intended to preserve slavery, why did civil-rights leaders insist that black Americans should be armed to protect themselves?

www.nationalreview.com

The anti-gun extremists...whether the simple, irrational anti-gunners or the marxists trying to disarm future Americans they wish to one day control and purge....do not have facts, truth or reality on their side....so they use emotion and lies to push their agenda...southern delegates

The Constitution was, in large part, written by slave owners. Its basic construction was heavily influenced by the Southern delegates. The 2nd was different things to different people. To the more Radical, it was a check on Govt.--to the plantation owner, it was legal justification for gunning up and chasing slaves..and regular criminals as well..to be fair.

Your last paragraph is a joke. If every black man in 1870 owned a rifle and was prepared to use it..we would have wiped them out. Genocide and/or forced migration.

Moron, the 2nd had nothing to do with owning slaves....you idiot. The Constitution checked the power of the slave colonies, and ended the slave trade. The slave owners then went on to become the democrat party that we know as the racist, violent party it is today...

Still as stupid as always. The Constitution codified slavery...and far from checking the slavery states, it empowered them by counting slaves for purposes of representation. The slave trade, legal or not..continued until the Civil War. The legal trade ended in 1807 with the passage of the Slave Trade Act. No Constitutional action was taken or required.

You are an idiot......having to deal with the group that would later become the democrat party, they needed to keep Britain out, so a compromise with the future democrats had to be made......it ended the slave trade and cut the power of the slave states, you idiot....

Nope...I'd say good try...but..it wasn't.
The sound you hear is every educated person on this board laughing at you.

But you're used to that, right?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

So, the argument is that because the Constitution made slavery legal in the United States, the entire founding is flawed and must be completely destroyed.

I support that theory, but only because Texas will not be a part of this new "union" these socialist cuuunts want to construct.

Count us out. Other states are welcome to join.

 

[miketx]

 

[marvin martian]

I can't find the exact idiot, but one of the anti-gun extremists in a different thread posted an alleged quote by Madison or one of the other Founders saying that they needed slave patrols or something.......all in an attempt to smear the Founders and the 2nd Amendment as supporting slavery, when, in fact....gun control, not the 2nd Amendment, supported slavery and racism...

But to make the claim that the Second Amendment was added to the Constitution to placate slave owners, Anderson is impelled to take numerous shortcuts. Take, for example, this pivotal sentence in the book:

“In short, James Madison, the Virginian, knew ‘that the militia’s prime function in his state, and throughout the south, was slave control.’”

The author frames the quote as if Madison, the author of the Bill of Rights, had said it himself — or, if we’re being generous, that it’s a fair representation of his views. When you follow the book’s endnote, however, it leads to a 1998 paper titled “The Hidden History of the Second Amendment,” written by anti-gun activist Carl T. Bogus, who shares Anderson’s thesis. It is his quote. Nowhere does Bogus offer any sample of Madison declaring, or even implying, that slave control was the impetus for the Second Amendment.
---------------
After all, gun control was inextricably tied to racism in the 19th and 20th centuries.

In 1834, the State of Tennessee revised its constitution from “That the freemen of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence” to “That the free white men of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence.” A number of Southern states followed suit.

Which is one of the reasons that Michigan senator Jacob Howard, when introducing the 14th Amendment ensuring that the constitutional rights of blacks in the South were protected, specifically pointed to “the personal rights guaranteed and secured by the first eight amendments to the Constitution,” as in the freedom of speech and of the press and “the right to bear arms” (italics mine).
---------

Fredrick Douglass reacted to the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 by editorializing that the best remedy would be “a good revolver, a steady hand, and a determination to shoot down any man attempting to kidnap.” The late-19th-century civil-rights leader Ida B. Wells argued that one of the lessons of the post–Civil War era, “which every Afro American should ponder well, is that a Winchester rifle should have a place of honor in every black home, and it should be used for that protection which the law refuses to give.” T. Thomas Fortune, another black civil-rights activist of the era, argued that it was with a Winchester that the black man could “defend his home and children and wife.”

The 1619 Project Comes for the Second Amendment | National Review

If the right to bear arms was intended to preserve slavery, why did civil-rights leaders insist that black Americans should be armed to protect themselves?

www.nationalreview.com

The anti-gun extremists...whether the simple, irrational anti-gunners or the marxists trying to disarm future Americans they wish to one day control and purge....do not have facts, truth or reality on their side....so they use emotion and lies to push their agenda...

It's ironic, given the fact that the DemoKKKrat party formed the KKK specifically to try to disarm freed slaves who armed themselves legally under the US constitution after the Republicans freed them in the Civil War.

Some things never change.

 

[2aguy]

A good column on the lie that the 2nd Amendment had anything to do with slavery....

With an established legal tradition protecting the right of the people to keep and bear arms coming from England in 1688, it is difficult to argue that the roots of the Second Amendment are racist or meant to deal with potential slave revolts. The English simply were not in the least bit concerned about the potential for slave revolts and "anti-Blackness" in America when they drafted their Bill of Rights in 1688.

------

Invasions from foreign enemies, American Indians, and pirates, but no mention of "anti-Blackness" or the need to prevent or deal with slave revolts.

Why did the writers of the Articles of Confederation go through the trouble of listing out the various threats that necessitated a militia but leave out "anti-Blackness" and slave revolts? There can be only one parsimonious explanation: the framers of the Articles of Confederation saw invasions from enemies, attacks from American Indians, and piracy as real threats to the fledgling states and felt it necessary to specifically mention these potential threats and lay the groundwork for how the individual states and the confederacy as a whole would respond.

-----

It is here that we find such Founding Fathers as James Madison stating during the Constitutional Convention, "A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty" (hat tip to The Avalon Project at Yale Law School's Lillian Goldman Law Library). In the Annals of Congress, we find Elbridge Gerry asserting without challenge that the purpose of the declaration of rights (Bill of Rights) is "to secure the people against the mal-administration of Government" and that the purpose and use of the militia "is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty."

These concerns about the threats posed by a large standing army (not by potential slave revolts) were echoed by other Federalists and Anti-Federalists throughout the ratification process and throughout the debates in Congress, when the first ten amendments were proposed.

Indeed, in his first annual message as president in 1801, Thomas Jefferson summed up the prevailing view of the role of the militia best when he said (again, hat tip to The Avalon Project at Yale Law School's Lillian Goldman Law Library):

Uncertain as we must ever be of the particular point in our circumference where an enemy may choose to invade us, the only force which can be ready at every point and competent to oppose them, is the body of neighboring citizens as formed into a militia. On these, collected from the parts most convenient, in numbers proportioned to the invading foe, it is best to rely, not only to meet the first attack, but if it threatens to be permanent, to maintain a defence until regulars may be engaged to relieve them.

It is not necessary to rely solely on history to disprove the "racist Second Amendment" argument. A rational look at the Second Amendment and subsequent actions taken by Congress proves that the Second Amendment had nothing to do with race. For instance, if it were true that the Second Amendment was meant to be a tool to deal with potential slave revolts, then the adoption of the Thirteenth Amendment, which abolished slavery in 1865, would have made the Second Amendment moot. That Congress did not repeal the Second Amendment when the Thirteenth Amendment was adopted, nor has repealed it since that time, only strengthens the argument that the Second Amendment was not and is not intended to deal with potential slave revolts. Furthermore, that slavery was not just limited to black people of African descent, but extended to American Indians and even black people enslaving people of their own race, proves that even if was a tool to deal with potential slave revolts, it was far from being "anti-Black" or even racist. These inconvenient truths do not fit the narrative.

----

As far as the Second Amendment is concerned, the truth is quite discernible: far from being a tool to disenfranchise or oppress, the Second Amendment is and always has been a mechanism for safeguarding, securing, and protecting the people from foreign threats and an overreaching government. Indeed, the Second Amendment is all about preventing the shackles of slavery from ever being applied to the people, and should that unlucky day come, it is all about shattering those shackles. I

The Second Amendment: Not Racist, but Definitely Pro-Freedom

 

[AZrailwhale]

Slave owners didn't need the Second Amendment to kill their slaves. Slaves were property killing one was legally like killing a horse or cow. They were valuable property , so killing one was a stupid action but as far as I know it was legally permissible.

 

[2aguy]

Slave owners didn't need the Second Amendment to kill their slaves. Slaves were property killing one was legally like killing a horse or cow. They were valuable property , so killing one was a stupid action but as far as I know it was legally permissible.

And slaves are never allowed to own weapons....

 

[M14 Shooter]

In all reality, anti-gun loons -always- lies about guns, be it a false statement willfully made, or willfully omitting facts that negate the point they want to make.
They know they only means they have to advance their agenda is to dishonestly prey upon the emotions of the ignorant.
It's all they have; its all they can do.

 

[Rigby5]

CONTINUATION:

The more I think about this, the more stupid it gets. There are whole rafts of things which were once restricted to only one group (usually white men) in the bad ol' days. For example, I don't see anyone suggesting that voting should be done away with because it was "founded in misogyny and racism", even though nearly all women and black people were unable to vote for most of our nation's history. We have the right to vote NOW, so who gives a rat's ass who did and didn't have it back at the beginning? Likewise, black people are just as free to legally purchase a gun as anyone else is, so what fucking difference does it make if they did 200 years ago?

The point is that racism shows how and why gun control is bad.
Dr. Martin Luther King did a speech about how his father faced down a lynch mob because he had a shotgun.
Without that shotgun, Dr. Martin Luther King may not have survived the attempt at a racist mob to arson their home.

People keep trying to imply that individuals don't need guns any more because government having guns makes individual guns unnecessary anymore, and that clearly is false.
Not only is government unable to be there in all circumstances, but government also often is the very culprit we have to defend from.
Again, government is often evil.
Originally it was slavery, then Prohibition, then illegal wars, then the War on Drugs, then mandatory sentences, then asset forfeiture, etc.
The only good thing government did was end slavery, but that was only because the government did not own slaves.
Anything government does profit from, like asset forfeiture, they do.
Government is not only always corrupt, but always tends toward becoming increasingly more corrupt.

 

[Rigby5]

It's ironic, given the fact that the DemoKKKrat party formed the KKK specifically to try to disarm freed slaves who armed themselves legally under the US constitution after the Republicans freed them in the Civil War.

Some things never change.

Not really fair because at one time, when Lincoln was alive, the Republican party was liberal, populist and progressive, while the democratic party was conservative and the wealthy elite.

After around 1880 or so, the parties started to switch.
Southern conservatives remain anti republican, but in name only.
The rest of the democrats became liberal, populist, progressives.
And the republicans were taken over by the wealthy elite and became conservatives.
The end of the Republican party as any sort of liberal, populist, or progressives was when they dumped Teddy Roosevelt.

The KKK now is decidedly Republican, so thing obviously do change.

 

[2aguy]

The point is that racism shows how and why gun control is bad.
Dr. Martin Luther King did a speech about how his father faced down a lynch mob because he had a shotgun.
Without that shotgun, Dr. Martin Luther King may not have survived the attempt at a racist mob to arson their home.

People keep trying to imply that individuals don't need guns any more because government having guns makes individual guns unnecessary anymore, and that clearly is false.
Not only is government unable to be there in all circumstances, but government also often is the very culprit we have to defend from.
Again, government is often evil.
Originally it was slavery, then Prohibition, then illegal wars, then the War on Drugs, then mandatory sentences, then asset forfeiture, etc.
The only good thing government did was end slavery, but that was only because the government did not own slaves.
Anything government does profit from, like asset forfeiture, they do.
Government is not only always corrupt, but always tends toward becoming increasingly more corrupt.

The democrat party governments of the southern states enacted the jim crow laws .....and looked the other way when the democrat party terror group, the klan, murdered blacks.

 

[2aguy]

Not really fair because at one time, when Lincoln was alive, the Republican party was liberal, populist and progressive, while the democratic party was conservative and the wealthy elite.

After around 1880 or so, the parties started to switch.
Southern conservatives remain anti republican, but in name only.
The rest of the democrats became liberal, populist, progressives.
And the republicans were taken over by the wealthy elite and became conservatives.
The end of the Republican party as any sort of liberal, populist, or progressives was when they dumped Teddy Roosevelt.

The KKK now is decidedly Republican, so thing obviously do change.

Wrong...the kkk is still racist, as is the democrat party....

 

[Abatis]

I can't find the exact idiot, but one of the anti-gun extremists in a different thread posted an alleged quote by Madison or one of the other Founders saying that they needed slave patrols or something.......all in an attempt to smear the Founders and the 2nd Amendment as supporting slavery, when, in fact....gun control, not the 2nd Amendment, supported slavery and racism...

This goofy theory was thrust back into the public discourse with the release of a new book on June 1st. I say goofy theory because the blame it places on the 2nd Amendment is misplaced; it wasn't the 2nd Amendment that protected the state militias and guns of Southern Whites and facilitated racist gun policy.

This theory and its proponents can not clear a fundamental flaw in their premise . . . Federal militia law applied to states but the 2nd Amendment did not, it had no effect.

Southern states used the fact that under federal law, (Militia Act of 1792), Blacks were excluded from being enrolled in the militia, to craft laws and legal arguments that the right to arms in their state constitution was only recognized for militia members.

Saying that the state constitution's RKBA was only recognized for militia members was an easy tactic to justify racially based disarmament laws forbidding Blacks to own guns. This wasn't just an Antebellum tactic enforced on Slaves; it continued after the Civil War and continued into and beyond Reconstruction in the Black Codes, impacting Freemen and then citizens.

Even as citizens, militia law governed and state laws were not restrained by the 2nd Amendment -- even with the 14th Amendment. This condition persisted even though Congress demanded states like Tennessee, with racially discriminatory language in their state constitutions, had to write new RKBA provisions, conforming with the non-discriminatory federal 2nd Amendment, to be readmitted to the Union . . . Even though incorporation of the 2ndA against the states by SCOTUS is 142 years away.

Some will recognize this illicit, discriminatory exercise is the genesis of the now invalid "militia right" interpretation, resurrected and inserted in the federal courts in 1942 . . . Which modern anti-gun, statist, authoritarian leftists are still arguing -- without the racial aspect of course, now they argue it applies to all Americans.

.

 

[Rogue AI]

Not really fair because at one time, when Lincoln was alive, the Republican party was liberal, populist and progressive, while the democratic party was conservative and the wealthy elite.

After around 1880 or so, the parties started to switch.
Southern conservatives remain anti republican, but in name only.
The rest of the democrats became liberal, populist, progressives.
And the republicans were taken over by the wealthy elite and became conservatives.
The end of the Republican party as any sort of liberal, populist, or progressives was when they dumped Teddy Roosevelt.

The KKK now is decidedly Republican, so thing obviously do change.

This fairy tale again? Prove it.

 

[Ringtone]

Before this, I had never heard a liberal claim that the second amendment was pro-slavery. The things that conservatives invent to reinforce their victimhood.

I have, however, heard of how pro-gun control Ronald Reagan and the NRA were when the Black Panthers started arming themselves.

So at what age were you dropped on your head? Does it still hurt?

 

[AZrailwhale]

You are an idiot......having to deal with the group that would later become the democrat party, they needed to keep Britain out, so a compromise with the future democrats had to be made......it ended the slave trade and cut the power of the slave states, you idiot....

It certainly reduced their political power. The slave states wanted their slaves counted in the census, the free states didn’t want the, counted. The compromise was slightly weighted in favor of the slave states with slaves being counted as three fifths instead of a half. The slave states political power didn’t start to really wane until the eighteen fifties. Until then they pretty much controlled the country.

 

[Smokin' OP]

Wrong...the kkk is still racist, as is the democrat party....

Trump: 'There were were good people on both sides'.

 

[2aguy]

View attachment 567460

Trump: 'There were were good people on both sides'.

And you lie about what he said....of course........this is why we know to never trust you with power....because you guys are all too willing to do the worst things to people who oppose you.

 

[Smokin' OP]

And you lie about what he said....of course........this is why we know to never trust you with power....because you guys are all too willing to do the worst things to people who oppose you.

Sure we are.

“Just stick with us, don’t believe the crap you see from these people, the fake news.”
You believe a born liar.

 

[Otis Mayfield]

Pre 1865, militia units in the South were kept busy keeping black Americans in line.

They put down slave uprisings, captured escaped slaves, etc.