The big myth of the second amendment

All of ground is covered in the paper.

 

Read the paper, it gives the depth and context, the circumstances that led up to what James Madison, Patrick Henry, and George Mason were arguing at the ratifying convention on June 2, 1788. The story of the second amendment cannot be understood by reading a few quotes by a few on the sidelines, It's a story that evolved over a couple of years. There just isn't room to get it all down in a forum such as this.

 

The pot wants an apology from the kettle!

 

The paper is documented. Try reading it.

 

The paper is a scholarly treatise. Your comment is not.

Try reading it, it is thoroughly annotated and documented.

 

Let me make sure I understand it.

The democratic slave owners added the Second Amendment to the constitution to catch runaway slaves and now the democrats who were forced to get rid of their slaves, see no further need for the Second Amendment. Does that about cover it?

 

Well, no he doesn't. "The Constitution is what the judges say it is." --Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes

 

You are going to go up against Mark Levin? LOL!!! Not a chance of winning that one. Look, the 2nd Amendment is in the Constitution regardless of the reason then. If you want to remove it, then use the Constitutional provisions to amend it. Not executive orders or legislative or congressional means. Hold a Convention of the States and remove it. Get enough Senators to remove it. If you can't, then it stands as the law of the land and we all have the right to own guns for protection against tyrannical state and federal governments if it comes down to that. We don't have slavery now so that is a ridiculous reason to not uphold the 2nd amendment.
The founding document for our nation is actually The Declaration of Independence which gives citizens the right to throw off a tyrannical dictatorship government. The Democrat Party is currently trying to establish such a government. It's clear we are in a post Constitutional government. We need a Convention of the States to strenghen the Constitution and stop Marxism, Fascism, Socialism and Communism. We are a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy.

 

Yes even the most bogus nonsense can be scholarly treatise. The fact is like it or not the information is wrong.

 

No. Don't be ignorant.

 

Non sequitur. Has nothing to do with the OP.

 

That isn't the point of the OP. Mark Levine isn't a formidable debater in the slightest. He's a blowhard. You have gone off onto a tangent completely off point with the OP.

Your last sentence totally destroys your credibility.

 

I clipped your irrelevant drivel from the quote, but I would like to rebut you statement that a republic is not a democracy.
Just because James Madison made a distinction between a republic and a democracy, what republicans fail to understand is that Madison was making a distinction between a representative democracy ( The kind of Republic America is ) and a 'direct' democracy. Moreover, with the abolition of faithless electors early in the 19th century, which was not what Hamilton wanted, we are more of a direct democracy today than we were when the federalist papers were written
http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/is-america-a-democracy-or-a-republic-or-what.585429/

I want to squash this BS narrative being pushed by the John Birchers and hard right that

"America is not a democracy, it is a republic".

Since when did this bullshit narrative that 'America is not a democracy' start?

When?

When republicans started realizing they are not winning the popular vote in the general.
This explains WHY they are pushing this anti-democracy LIE.


A republic simply means, a government of appointed or elected leaders, as opposed to a monarchy or an emperor, etc. So, 'republic' is a general term, it doesn't necessarily equal 'parliament' or 'American style government', you have to qualify it.

Is it an Islamic republic republic? Or, Is it socialist republic? Is it a Democratic Socialist Republic? Is it a Fascist Republic? Is it a People's Republic? Is it a Unitary Republic? Is it a Federal Republic?

Or, is it a democratic republic?

America is a democratic republic.

But, 'democracy' is further qualified, as there are direct democracies and representative democracies.

So, America to be precise, I would say America is a federalist representative democratic republic presiding over a union of states with their respective governments all of which are held together by a highly respected and abided by Constitution. Some call America a 'Constitutional Republic", but that's not enough to really define America. Some governments with constitutions, their constitution is just a piece of paper, not well respected, not abided by, so declaring America a 'Constitutional Republic" doesn't tell us much.

In America, there are many elections. There are elections for the electors/delegates (faithful to the president of choice), for the presidential nominees, for congresspersons, for US Senators, for Governors, for State Attorneys General, for ballot initiatives, special elections, for education boards, supervisors, assembly persons, state senators, mayors, etc. And, in ALL of those elections, all but one are direct elections. Only in the general presidential election, is it representative, where the electorate elect electors who, in turn, select the president (jeez, it's complex, I think I got that all right). Anyway, America is all about elections, and to those who claim America is 'not' a democracy, but a 'republic', you are waving a flag, and on that flag, it shouts, 'look everyone, I'm ignorant!'. America is, and always has been, a democracy, otherwise known as a Democratic Republic.

It's widely held in academia, political science, that America, and all the western nations are what is known as 'liberal democracies'. The only time in history do we have politicians declaring that America is not a democracy are by republicans who have suddenly realized that they are losing the popular vote, so they must denigrate the notion of democracy altogether, hence all the anti-democratic legislation that has been going down in many republican states, like Georgia. Republicans hate democracy. This is clear.

 

Garyd, you are wrong just about all of the time.

 

The slave owners tended to be democrats.

The democrats tend to want to get rid of guns.

Where am I wrong?

 

Yes, the final answer always seems to be a veiled insult. Yawn.

 

Actually I am right about 90% of the time.

 

Wow, sounds so "official" when you frame it like that! I'm sold!

 

It isn't hard to read. It is simply an opinion that I don't share.

 

Of course to subscribe to the theory of the OP you have to completely ignore facts like these.

Incidentally, Tucker was appointed as a district judge by President Madison. Tucker was an early abolitionist, who wrote this concerning abolition of slavery:

Even more telling is the man who in no small part is responsible for Madison repeatedly proposing the Bill of Rights—George Mason. Here are his thoughts on militias and rights to arms.

George Mason helped craft the Constitution but never signed it. Why? Because it did not contain a Bill of Rights and did not abolish the slave trade. However, he was a strong influence on James Madison and the eventual addition of the Bill of Rights came partly as a result of his prompting.

Could slave states have had an ulterior motive? Maybe. Was the 2A crafted to protect slavery? LOL, no. Absolutely not. Many of the greatest supporters of it were abolitionists.

 

Sorry, but you can't run and hide that easily. The OP source document is simply a classic quote-mining exercise to try to find a potent propaganda attack against what was (at the time it was written) a rising tide of legal scholarship that pointed toward Heller. SCOTUS found it unimpressive, as do I.
The OP source document is more accurately seen as a precursor to the "1619 Project," political activism disguised as history.

 

Dude 75 % of the country favor voter ID the only people who don't are Democrat machine politicians talk about ignoring the will of the people...

 

The man who would restrict your right to own fire arms such as those that might be carried by a common soldier, is telling you he thinks you'd make a fine slave...

 

I did it is the usual far left anti freedom garbage.

 

Incompetent rebuttal; off topic, unrelated to the OP.