The Second Amendment was Ratified to Preserve Slavery

Originally posted by stupid girl
Repeal the second amendment, and all US Citizens become slaves.

just like in they are in all those other liberal democracies around hte world that have no such legislation?

you might find it less onerous than you think!!

Arms are used to keep people in check. If the people don't have them, they are subject to those who do.

So your unarmed neighbour is your slave? Or the guy sown the streeet, or whoever else in eth US doesn't own a gun?

I suggest to you that what guarantees your liberty is actually a well organised society that recognises the rule of law.

In such a society there is no need for youas an individual to have to resort to violence to achieve or defend your liberty - because there is a widespread willingness of others to do it for you.

And this leaves you free to enjoy the fruits of that society.

reply to post by SloAnPainful


No I see your point . However I don't think you understand mine . Maybe back when your constitution was written gun were top tier weapons . but that was well over 200 years ago . If you think an ar 15 bushmaster or a 9 mm will defend your country from tyranny I think your are delusional if you think you can take down the military power.

Originally posted by Tardacus

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.

You made me laugh so hard, I snorted.
I would like to add to your well-made point, the fact that our government is also not going to nuke itself.
All retired military equipment is owned by the private sector. You name it, and Joe Blow down the street could very well own it. We even have private ownership of nuclear missile silos.

Originally posted by TKDRL
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.

I am sure people said that about hitlers army too right . good outstanding people can never do such things . Point is most people will do what they are told by an authority figure . there have been numerous social tests done on this and they always end up with the same results .. The majority people do what they are told . Even if it causes harm or death .

reply to post by freedomSlave

Those poor souls believe they are fighting an enemy over there. Good luck convincing those men and women that their own countrymen and countrywomen they believe they are fighting for over there, are now the new enemy. I mean really, that is a huge jump, from fighting another country to fighting your own country. Sure, some might be dumb enough to buy it, a majority will not, including the ones that count, the brass giving the orders.

Blah, we are kind of straying off topic here anyways. As to the OP, no, the 2nd was not ratified to preserve slavery, it was the opposite. To preserve individual liberty.

reply to post by TKDRL


I would like to think so in a perfect world but we don't live in a perfect world .

It seems to me that what the OP posted has more to do with why militias are under state control rather than why the 2nd amendment was added.

In the quote that was posted the writer is saying that the way it was originally written was that only congress had authority to call up the militia and only if there was an invasion or attack. he pointed out that a slave rebellion wouldn`t be considered an attack or invasion and therefore congress`s hands would be tied and they wouldn`t have the authority to call up the militia.
He was pointing out that if there was a slave rebellion that neither the state nor the federal government would have the authority to defend the the people from the rebels.

Militias were a fact of life even before the constitution was written so the right to bear arms wasn`t a new right that was created just for the constitution it was always an assumed right.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


Yeah, nice try to paint me in a corner, but you still fail.
I edited my post to make the point I'm trying to get across more clearly, way before you replied to it.
As soon as I posted it, I knew I needed to go back in and edit it before the inevitable lurker of pointless contention jumped on it in a desperate attempt to point their ever-wagging finger at anyone but themselves.

Originally posted by Tardacus
It seems to me that what the OP posted has more to do with why militias are under state control rather than why the 2nd amendment was added.

IMHO, I suppose I would sum it up like this-

The OP is against civilian gun ownership.
Guns are bad and so are the people that want to own them and use them.
Gun ownership, which is bad, was allowed for the (bad) slave owners to hunt down their slaves (once upon a time, hundreds of years ago)
So gun ownership (bad) was only allowed for the slave owners (bad) to hunt down their slaves.
Bad, bad, bad.

And someone will most likely reply to this comment making some ignorant accusation towards me about slavery in 3, 2, 1.....

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 .

I keep seeing this argument and it makes me laugh.
The military is made up of our sons and daughters, husbands and wives, our brothers and sisters. Most, granted not all, but most will stand with us. Who will drive the government's tanks? The politicians? We should be so lucky.
Drones????? Remote control airplanes with missles or guns. Seen it done by civilians. Smart, creative folks, those f*****g hillbillies and rednecks. We ain't the Beverly Hillbillies, pal.
Missles.......Rockets........ Big deal. Who the hell you think makes all this sh*t for Uncle S? The American Patriot is NOT a barefoot hillbilly with a squirrel rifle and a skinnin' knife! Not every scientist, every doctor, every engineer, ad infinitum, is automatically a ward of the state, or more accurately, of the rebels who wish to overthrow the Constitution. The majority by far are NOT willing to surrender ANY rights to fiat.
You assume we are weak. You assume we are without resource or resolve. You assume we are stupid.
You assume we cannot organize.
Your view is subjective and myopic.
The gun grabbers can not even garner broad based support from their own party.
A gun to a missle fight??? Seriously???

reply to post by spock51

I keep seeing this argument and it makes me laugh.

It's funny how we seem to see it coming from the countries that have already been disarmed.

I'd be pissy too, if they took all my stuff and the people across the water still had theirs.

Originally posted by spock51
The American Patriot is NOT a barefoot hillbilly with a squirrel rifle and a skinnin' knife!

Haaayyyy!!! I got shoes. I just don't like to wear 'em.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
Founders Patrick Henry, George Mason, and James Madison were totally clear on that . . . and we all should be too.

I think the author of this article is reaching to fulfill their view of the world; or rather, that of the intentions of the creation of the United States of America. They conveniently reduce the argument down to a couple of words, ignoring volumes of "why" from the Federalist/Anti Federalist Papers, notes, letters, Continental Congress journals, personal journals, etc, etc.

And you have the nerve to say you are expanding the knowledge base? You expanding nothing, you just copy/pasted and said "What say you?"

In heard that it was a payback plan to the French for helping in the Revolutionary War so that we could ramp up gun production and run guns to France in preparation for the french Revolution so we could put Napoleon in power so that he could conquer Europe and then we were going to knock off Napoleon and make ourselves the rulers of a United States of Europe.

reply to post by ownbestenemy


did you know about this argument and these writings before I posted them?

If not then yes, I have the nerve to claim I am expanding your knowledge.

And if you did then clearly there are others who did not, so I still have the nerve to claim to be expanding their knowledge.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


WRONG
Don't get your sources from the far left or far right and you will hit closer to the truth. I will admit that this is a clever left wing nut tactic.

HOWEVER

Many believed that "the right to bear arms was necessary for those who wanted to take a stand against slavery."

Antislavery advocates routinely invoked the right to bear arms for self-defense. Joel Tiffany, for example, citing Blackstone’s description of the right, wrote that “the right to keep and bear arms, also implies the right to use them if necessary in self defence; without this right to use the guaranty would have hardly been worth the paper it consumed.” A Treatise on the Unconstitutionality of American Slavery 117–118 (1849); see also L. Spooner, The Unconstitutionality of Slavery 116 (1845) (right enables “personal defence”). In his famous Senate speech about the 1856 “Bleeding Kansas” conflict, Charles Sumner proclaimed:

supreme.justia.com...

Want to compare sources?

Also if you still feel like learning some more:
en.wikipedia.org...
So even if that left wing theory to try to to tie pro gun advocates with an act to sustain slavery were true, which it is not, it has been stated that we maintain the right beyond that of just militias but as individuals and for the purpose of self defense.

Originally posted by Tardacus
Militias were a fact of life even before the constitution was written so the right to bear arms wasn`t a new right that was created just for the constitution it was always an assumed right.

I dont' know that it was an assumed right - it was in the 1689 British Bill of rights - as long as you were a protestant! And of course before the revolution that applied in the colonies.

one of the complaints against James II - the Catholic King who was deposed by the "Glorious Revolution" was that he

did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant religion and the laws and liberties of this kingdom

in various ways, one of which was....:

By causing several good subjects being Protestants to be disarmed at the same time when papists were both armed and employed contrary to law;

And the remedy was

That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;

(extracts from The Avalon Project)

AFAIK this right to bear arms applied in the British American colonies.

So why don't you go back to your little thread title and add a question mark and include the information that it was widely observed that the second amendment was fundamental in standing AGAINST slavery.

I think that would be the right thing to do. I mean if you are being honest and not a biased left wing extremist.
Why not be fair and balanced?

reply to post by DocHolidaze

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

I fully agree with your implications. However, I believe "they" are not "them".

reply to post by TKDRL

Unless you were black. Try and gloss over it all you want, but the 2nd was ratified at a time when blacks had no rights, so any "individual liberty" claims are just hogwash.