Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
posted to rec.boats
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Nov 2012
Posts: 1,370
Default Interesting take on the history of the 2nd Amendment...


Founding Fathers’ Words Reveal 2nd Amendment Was… To Preserve Slavery?
Posted by Nathaniel Downes

Second_Amendment

We’ve all heard the arguments from the gun manufacturers lobby: “The 2nd
Amendment was about freedom!” “The 2nd Amendment was to ensure that men
could stand against their government” or other similarly absurd
thoughts. But, what did the Founding Fathers think of the 2nd Amendment?
It turns out, thanks to research done by Thom Hartmann, the 2nd
Amendment was about slavery.

What is ignored in the NRA’s arguments is that, at the time the U.S.
Constitution was written, the militia in the south was known by another
name: the slave patrol, and virtually all men of age served in its ranks
at one point or another. As far back as 1680 in Virginia, the militias
were organized to prevent:

“…the frequent meetings of considerable numbers of negroe slaves, under
pretence of feasts and burialls is judged [to be] of dangerous
consequence.” (sic)


In other words, the Virginia Militia was tasked with breaking up slave
rebellions by busting any slave who might be organizing one. It even
gave ‘incentive’ to men to serve on the militia: any freed colored
person (black, Native American, or any other), if caught fleeing by the
Militiaman, would be turned over to them as property, enslaved. A very
effective incentive in colonial Virginia.

By 1755, the Militia was established not only as a foundation to enforce
slavery in the south, but it was a structure which it could be expanded
if need be. Countless records of captured free people of color, even
people such as the Irish, were pressed as slaves under the system.

With the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, there was concern among
slave holders that their militias, their slave patrols, would be usurped
by the new federal government using the provisions outlined in Article
1, Section 8. Patrick Henry in particular was quite vocal on the
subject, saying:

Let me here call your attention to that part [Article 1, Section 8
of the proposed Constitution] which gives the Congress power to provide
for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing
such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United
States. . .

By this, sir, you see that their control over our last and best
defence is unlimited. If they neglect or refuse to discipline or arm our
militia, they will be useless: the states can do neither . . . this
power being exclusively given to Congress. The power of appointing
officers over men not disciplined or armed is ridiculous; so that this
pretended little remains of power left to the states may, at the
pleasure of Congress, be rendered nugatory. [Source]

He also is quoted as saying:

If the country be invaded, a state may go to war, but cannot
suppress [slave] insurrections. 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, can call forth the militia. [Source]

He was not alone either, with George Mason joining him in concern:

The militia may be here destroyed by that method which has been
practised in other parts of the world before; that is, by rendering them
useless, by disarming them. Under various pretences, Congress may
neglect to provide for arming and disciplining the militia; and the
state governments cannot do it, for Congress has an exclusive right to
arm them. [Source]

In other words, the U.S. Congress could disarm the patrols needed to
keep slaves in line, eliminating slavery with one bold and quick move
overnight. The 2nd Amendment itself was purposefully designed to empower
the states to manage and handle their slave patrols, their militias.
Which is why when Thomas Jefferson had James Madison draft up the 2nd
Amendment, he had the language changed, from this:

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: but no person religiously scrupulous of
bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.

To the language we know today:

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. [Source]

A serious redesign, would you not say? The focus shift from a civil,
non-conscripted force to a state-regulated entity which can be
conscripted into service fit the needs of the slave holders. In a stroke
of irony, when Abraham Lincoln did free the slaves, he used the very
power which Patrick Henry and George Mason feared the government would,
only at that time, by the Confederate states acting in revolt, they had
abandoned their voting positions within the United States and therefore
were unable to block the legislation. Their petty revolt resulted in
their institution of slavery being wiped away. It still was a bloody
civil war, but their “right to bear arms” destroyed what they had hoped
to preserve.

When people call themselves patriots, or say they’re standing for what
the founding fathers stood for when it comes to the 2nd Amendment, they
are, in fact, doing nothing of the sort. Unless, of course, they’re
arguing for the right to press people into involuntary,
lifetime-indentured servitude, passed from parent to child in
perpetuity. Or perhaps, that was, in fact, the plan all along.



http://tinyurl.com/bgc6y5w
  #3   Report Post  
posted to rec.boats
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Jan 2013
Posts: 457
Default Interesting take on the history of the 2nd Amendment...

On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 09:41:26 -0500, ESAD wrote:



http://tinyurl.com/bgc6y5w


'Addictinginfo.org' - you actually read such ****? And you whine about FOX?

~snerk~


Salmonbait

--

'Name-calling'...the liberals' answer to a lost argument!
  #4   Report Post  
posted to rec.boats
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Sep 2011
Posts: 7,588
Default Interesting take on the history of the 2nd Amendment...

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 09:41:26 -0500, ESAD wrote:



http://tinyurl.com/bgc6y5w

'Addictinginfo.org' - you actually read such ****? And you whine about FOX?

~snerk~

So, what in the article do you disagree with and why? Please give cite
to counter any of the facts presented.
  #5   Report Post  
posted to rec.boats
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Nov 2012
Posts: 1,370
Default Interesting take on the history of the 2nd Amendment...

On 1/17/13 11:57 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 09:41:26 -0500, ESAD wrote:



http://tinyurl.com/bgc6y5w

'Addictinginfo.org' - you actually read such ****? And you whine about FOX?

~snerk~

So, what in the article do you disagree with and why? Please give cite
to counter any of the facts presented.


Addictinginfo is just one of a number of sites that picked up the essay.
Oh, and addictinginfo doesn't try to pass itself off as a news site, as
fox does.


  #6   Report Post  
posted to rec.boats
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Nov 2012
Posts: 1,370
Default Interesting take on the history of the 2nd Amendment...

On 1/17/13 12:15 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 10:51:26 -0500, ESAD wrote:

On 1/17/13 10:42 AM,
wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 09:41:26 -0500, ESAD wrote:


Founding Fathers’ Words Reveal 2nd Amendment Was… To Preserve Slavery?
Posted by Nathaniel Downes

Second_Amendment

We’ve all heard the arguments from the gun manufacturers lobby: “The 2nd
Amendment was about freedom!” “The 2nd Amendment was to ensure that men
could stand against their government” or other similarly absurd
thoughts. But, what did the Founding Fathers think of the 2nd Amendment?
It turns out, thanks to research done by Thom Hartmann, the 2nd
Amendment was about slavery.



That is an interesting spin, I am not sure it is accurate but it is
interesting.



It sure would make an interesting thesis topic for someone seeking a
master's in U.S. history.


Two people, one who agrees with Hartman and one who doesn't.

He makes it sound like Virginia was the only state with a militia and
the only people who wanted the right to own a gun were slave holders.

If I was really interested in pursuing this I would see what the
debate really was about the second amendment in 1789.

It is the kind of thing that may not be that well documented and you
will read a lot more opinion than fact. Most of it will be written in
the latter part of the 20th century.



Hey, let's not go down the road of the bible!


  #7   Report Post  
posted to rec.boats
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Sep 2011
Posts: 7,588
Default Interesting take on the history of the 2nd Amendment...

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 11:57:41 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 09:41:26 -0500, ESAD wrote:



http://tinyurl.com/bgc6y5w

'Addictinginfo.org' - you actually read such ****? And you whine about FOX?

~snerk~

So, what in the article do you disagree with and why? Please give cite
to counter any of the facts presented.


I didn't see many "facts" presented, just opinions from Hartman. Have
you ever seen his show? He is left of you.


Again, please show what you disagree with and why. Please give cite to
counter what you disagree with.
  #8   Report Post  
posted to rec.boats
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Sep 2011
Posts: 7,588
Default Interesting take on the history of the 2nd Amendment...

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 13:03:17 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 11:57:41 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 09:41:26 -0500, ESAD wrote:



http://tinyurl.com/bgc6y5w

'Addictinginfo.org' - you actually read such ****? And you whine about FOX?

~snerk~
So, what in the article do you disagree with and why? Please give cite
to counter any of the facts presented.

I didn't see many "facts" presented, just opinions from Hartman. Have
you ever seen his show? He is left of you.


Again, please show what you disagree with and why. Please give cite to
counter what you disagree with.


http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/2...l_militia.html

http://www.historyisfun.org/militia-...ionary-war.htm

http://www.connecticutsar.org/articl...ts_militia.htm

http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/walter....%20militia.pdf


I'm sorry, how do those counter the facts previously given??
  #9   Report Post  
posted to rec.boats
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Sep 2011
Posts: 7,588
Default Interesting take on the history of the 2nd Amendment...

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 09:14:43 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 13:03:17 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 11:57:41 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 09:41:26 -0500, ESAD wrote:



http://tinyurl.com/bgc6y5w

'Addictinginfo.org' - you actually read such ****? And you whine about FOX?

~snerk~
So, what in the article do you disagree with and why? Please give cite
to counter any of the facts presented.

I didn't see many "facts" presented, just opinions from Hartman. Have
you ever seen his show? He is left of you.

Again, please show what you disagree with and why. Please give cite to
counter what you disagree with.

http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/2...l_militia.html

http://www.historyisfun.org/militia-...ionary-war.htm

http://www.connecticutsar.org/articl...ts_militia.htm

http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/walter....%20militia.pdf


I'm sorry, how do those counter the facts previously given??


None of them mention anything about militias chasing runaway slaves.
There is a story or two about the groups that did chase runaway slaves
but they don't say anything about militias.


So.... let me get this straight, so in your eyes, that means that the
facts given don't count????? Really?
  #10   Report Post  
posted to rec.boats
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Jan 2013
Posts: 6
Default Interesting take on the history of the 2nd Amendment...

ESAD wrote:

Founding Fathers’ Words Reveal 2nd Amendment Was… To Preserve Slavery?
Posted by Nathaniel Downes

Second_Amendment

We’ve all heard the arguments from the gun manufacturers lobby: “The
2nd Amendment was about freedom!” “The 2nd Amendment was to ensure
that men could stand against their government” or other similarly
absurd thoughts. But, what did the Founding Fathers think of the 2nd
Amendment? It turns out, thanks to research done by Thom Hartmann, the
2nd Amendment was about slavery.

snipped

So sell your guns, pay your overdue taxes, and STFU, Krause.
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Thune Amendment Gene[_3_] General 20 August 1st 09 02:26 AM
Boat with an interesting history Gould 0738 General 2 November 19th 04 06:28 AM
Reagan's own words on Second Amendment Bart Senior ASA 0 June 16th 04 05:11 AM
O.T. Interesting History Lesson RGrew176 General 2 March 2nd 04 08:18 AM
Interesting history on a pretty neat boat..... Gould 0738 General 3 August 29th 03 03:24 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:24 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 BoatBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Boats"

 

Copyright © 2017