Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The Second Amendment was Ratified to Preserve Slavery

page: 1
8
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 02:19 PM
link   

The Second Amendment was Ratified to Preserve Slavery


truth-out.org

The real reason the Second Amendment was ratified, and why it says "State" instead of "Country" (the Framers knew the difference - see the 10th Amendment), was to preserve the slave patrol militias in the southern states, which was necessary to get Virginia's vote. Founders Patrick Henry, George Mason, and James Madison were totally clear on that . . . and we all should be too.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 02:19 PM
link   
OUCH!

It is an interesting point thou - they changed the word "country" in the amendment to "state" - so the slave-patrols would not be under federal control -


Henry then bluntly laid it out:


"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."


to allow the militia to be called out agaisnt slaves it had to be under STATE controul, not COUNTRY (ie federal) control.


His first draft for what became the Second Amendment had said: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country [emphasis mine]: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person."

But Henry, Mason and others wanted southern states to preserve their slave-patrol militias independent of the federal government. So Madison changed the word "country" to the word "state," and redrafted the Second Amendment into today's form:


"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State [emphasis mine], the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."


truth-out.org
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 02:22 PM
link   
Era of the time separation of state and federal government.


Period.
edit on 16-1-2013 by LostCompletely because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 02:24 PM
link   
The second amendment was created for the American population. So we can rid ourselves of tyranny in gov't and other things.


In no particular order, early American settlers viewed the right to arms and/or the right to bear arms and/or state -militias as important for one or more of these purposes.
-enabling the people to organize a militia system.
-participating in law enforcement
-deterring tyrannical government
-repelling invasion
-suppressing insurrection, allegedly including slave revolts
-facilitating a natural right of self-defense


-SAP-
edit on 16-1-2013 by SloAnPainful because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 02:25 PM
link   
So what's a Kiwi like you care about this anyways?

You didn't offer your take on this.



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


they succeeded in there ruse, but now they are trying disarm the slaves, in order to gain complete control



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 02:33 PM
link   
Be that as it may the 2nd has come under attack by Klansmen and classist bigots over and over again to keep the poor and the minorities defenseless.

Ronald Reagan sought to shred the 2nd when a bunch of Negroes had the nerve to get uppity in California while he was governor. As a side note gotta love Obama dragging out that gun grabbing bigots name in his little speech today.

Personally I dont care about the origins of the amendment, what the "founders" thought, or even this country.

What I know is that this is my property and I want to use it as I see fit without causing harm to anyone else's property or person.

Dissolve the US and shred the Constitution. This is still my property.

If the bully on the block gets to have one to protect himself from me then I get to have one to protect myself from him.
edit on 16-1-2013 by thisguyrighthere because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 




Personally I dont care about the origins of the amendment, what the "founders" thought, or even this country. What I know is that this is my property and I want to use it as I see fit without causing harm to anyone else's property or person. Dissolve the US and shred the Constitution. This is still my property.

AMEN, BROTHER!

Well put!



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by SloAnPainful
 


I keep seeing this stupid quote and it always makes me laugh . Guess you people will wait till your government and country have hit rock bottom . Also if there was a revolution and your countrymen took up arms , still seems kinda pointless , what are guns going to do against drones , tanks , guided missiles , and what ever other goodies your government are hiding for destruction . Your little gun are not going to do a lot of damage when your government can make your state nothing more than a glass parking lot . Whatever you keep thinking that if it helps you people sleep at night .

Kinda reminds me of a guy bringing a stick to a gun fight . but for you americans it's like why bring a gun to a missile fight .



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by freedomSlave
 


The government cannot do those things, without trained operators of those weapons. I don't see those trained operators following such orders.



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by freedomSlave
 


I think your missing the entire point here. It's not about when and if we need them. It's about this amendment being a RIGHT of the people.

Granted one of the main reasons behind the Second Amendment is freedom from tyranny, there are other reasons to bear arms, such as personal protection.

Also this amendment was written in the 1770s when there wasn't drones and tanks.

-SAP-



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Goldcurrent
So what's a Kiwi like you care about this anyways?

You didn't offer your take on this.


Inmproving the factual knowledge base of the US is good thing for the whole world



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 02:52 PM
link   
Ok, here we go with assumptions...
Same thing as assuming that they only meant weapons of that era...

Read it, it says it clearly: 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.

We are assuming what they meant, but since they didn't put it in the constitution is pointless.

A different story will be if it read: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, and maintenance of slavery, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

or: A well regulated militia with only hand guns, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

you might agree or not with the 2 amendment, but DO NOT assume it was written for a purpose other that stipulated...



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 02:53 PM
link   
Actually there is a very good, and quite lengthy read on the reasons behind the 2nd amendment at.

THE HISTORY OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT

Much it has to do with the history of England as that formed much of the founder's background. As I said, it is a fairly long read, delving into English history, the views of the Federalists and Anti-Federalists, and the ratification process, (including arguments of the founders regarding the why the amendment was needed)

The ultimate reasoning behind is spelled out below....

English history made two things clear to the American revolutionaries: force of arms was the only effective check on government, and standing armies threatened liberty. Recognition of these premises meant that the force of arms necessary to check government had to be placed in the hands of citizens. The English theorists Blackstone and Harrington advocated these tenants. Because the public purpose of the right to keep arms was to check government, the right necessarily belonged to the individual and, as a matter of theory, was thought to be absolute in that it could not be abrogated by the prevailing rulers.

These views were adopted by the framers, both Federalists and Antifederalists. Neither group trusted government. Both believed the greatest danger to the new republic was tyrannical government and that the ultimate check on tyranny was an armed population. It is beyond dispute that the second amendment right was to serve the same public purpose as advocated by the English theorists. The check on all government, not simply the federal government, was the armed population, the militia. Government would not be accorded the power to create a select militia since such a body would become the government's instrument. The whole of the population would comprise the militia.


So there ya have it. It was a intended to be a check against the government ever taking unlimited power.



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
OUCH!

It is an interesting point thou - they changed the word "country" in the amendment to "state" - so the slave-patrols would not be under federal control -


Is it a secret that the US had slaves at the time?

I'm not seeing why this is such a surprise. Obviously there were plenty who were against the Slavery issue while others viewed them as property and wanted to make sure they were secured. This seems, considering the Context of the period of the document being written like a legitimate reason at the time {From their point of view} for some to support the 2nd..

Other signers had their own reasons as has already been outlined by other members..
edit on 16-1-2013 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by freedomSlave
 


A bunch of raggy colonist beat what was considered one of the biggest military powers of the time. So excuse us if we remain optimistic.



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by Goldcurrent
So what's a Kiwi like you care about this anyways?

You didn't offer your take on this.


Inmproving the factual knowledge base of the US is good thing for the whole world


Only if the "facts" are actually true.. and I honestly don't think the ones you are presenting are...



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by TKDRL
 


Why not those same trained operators have no problem blowing up some neighborhood in some middle eastern country or shooting at innocent people .



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 02:58 PM
link   
Repeal the second amendment, and all US Citizens become slaves.
Arms are used by the free for personal use. Arms are used by the oppressed to keep people in check. If the people don't have them, they are subject to those who do.
edit on 16-1-2013 by stupid girl because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by freedomSlave
reply to post by SloAnPainful
 


I keep seeing this stupid quote and it always makes me laugh . Guess you people will wait till your government and country have hit rock bottom . Also if there was a revolution and your countrymen took up arms , still seems kinda pointless , what are guns going to do against drones , tanks , guided missiles , and what ever other goodies your government are hiding for destruction . Your little gun are not going to do a lot of damage when your government can make your state nothing more than a glass parking lot . Whatever you keep thinking that if it helps you people sleep at night .

Kinda reminds me of a guy bringing a stick to a gun fight . but for you americans it's like why bring a gun to a missile fight .


yep the government sure made short work of the wars in vietnam and afghanistan with all those fancy drones, and bombs and missiles they have .
afghanistan is smaller than the state of texas, and we have 50 states.
edit on 16-1-2013 by Tardacus because: (no reason given)






top topics



 
8
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join