jimithyashford
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2016
- Messages
- 808
- Reaction score
- 156
- Location
- Midwestern USA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
So I made a video and blog post about this which I will link here:https://pointofcontention.wordpress.com/2017/11/13/the-history-and-context-of-the-second-amendment/
That link goes into greater detail, quotes sources, reads from historic texts of the time, etc, but I will also recap the general case here:
While the Second Amendment was written by revolutionaries in the revolutionary era, and while the general sentiment of empowering people against tyrants was quite strong at the time, that is not why the Second Amendment exists or why it is in the US constitution.
We have to ask the question why was gun control and the mustering of militias not left up to individual states? Why put that in the federal Constitution, why put that under federal protection, why take the gun control power off the table for individual states? Further more why did fiercely revolutionary and pro-gun people like Patrick Henry (who is often quoted by Gun advocates) oppose the second amendment if it was really about arming people against tyrannical government, something Patrick Henry was all about?
The answer is that the Second Amendment was not about that at all. The Second amendment was about forming a militia to avoid the creation of a military caste, and about preserving State control of Slave Militias.
The aversion to standing armies is well documented at the time, I quote many sources. The usage of slave patrols was extremely common, I quote many sources, and the fear that the Federal government would use their control over the militia to undermine the slave trade is also well attested, I quote patrick henry himself at length.
It seems to be far beyond any reasonable doubt that while revolutionary sentiment was popular at the time, that state would have been content to leave the arming of their people against potential tyrants as a state matter if not for the issues of slave patrols and a federal militia, and that those are the reasons why the second amendment of the US constitution exists, rather than leaving the matter at the state level.
I would sincerly like to know if anyone, after hearing from the rather authoritative sources I cite in my research, can reasonably deny this to be the case?
That link goes into greater detail, quotes sources, reads from historic texts of the time, etc, but I will also recap the general case here:
While the Second Amendment was written by revolutionaries in the revolutionary era, and while the general sentiment of empowering people against tyrants was quite strong at the time, that is not why the Second Amendment exists or why it is in the US constitution.
We have to ask the question why was gun control and the mustering of militias not left up to individual states? Why put that in the federal Constitution, why put that under federal protection, why take the gun control power off the table for individual states? Further more why did fiercely revolutionary and pro-gun people like Patrick Henry (who is often quoted by Gun advocates) oppose the second amendment if it was really about arming people against tyrannical government, something Patrick Henry was all about?
The answer is that the Second Amendment was not about that at all. The Second amendment was about forming a militia to avoid the creation of a military caste, and about preserving State control of Slave Militias.
The aversion to standing armies is well documented at the time, I quote many sources. The usage of slave patrols was extremely common, I quote many sources, and the fear that the Federal government would use their control over the militia to undermine the slave trade is also well attested, I quote patrick henry himself at length.
It seems to be far beyond any reasonable doubt that while revolutionary sentiment was popular at the time, that state would have been content to leave the arming of their people against potential tyrants as a state matter if not for the issues of slave patrols and a federal militia, and that those are the reasons why the second amendment of the US constitution exists, rather than leaving the matter at the state level.
I would sincerly like to know if anyone, after hearing from the rather authoritative sources I cite in my research, can reasonably deny this to be the case?