The big myth of the second amendment

Thank you for confirming your response lacks scholarship.

Obviously, you didn't read it, and, given the caliber of your replies, historical facts obviously mean nothing to you.

 

Incompetent rebuttal; off topic, unrelated to the OP.

 

Slavery may have been an important issue to Southern States but the protection was to prevent State's rights from being steamrolled. The Founders gave us a minimal Federal government because there had to be one. They would have preferred government would be primarily at State level which was how it was set up and why the Senate has the last word on new laws.

 

I wrote to another professor American History at a university in Tennessee, who wrote a book about George Mason, and I asked his opinion of the paper.

He gave a nice critique of it, questioned a few aspects of some historical facts, but, on the whole, he liked it, thought the premise his paper
added dimension to the discussion on the history of the second amendment.

Wrote ( of the paper)

[ I ] found it to be a virtual intellectual feast touching on many of my favorite founding fathers. He writes very engagingly and with good historical nuance. I think his argument adds an important dimension to the 2nd Amendment debate

Tawdy language like 'propaganda' and so forth, were not present in his critique.

Oh, the right has found, in Scalia, the perfect man, a man who makes terrible arguments sound intelligent, the perfect man to be their champion, but, he is not the final word on this issue, not by a long shot.

The country is slowly shifting leftward, and that ship shows no sign of being reversed.

 

I'll file that in my wishful thinking but wholly deluded file.

 

No, you're not.

 

your own link shows otherwise.

“When one thinks about policing in early America, there are a few images that may come to mind: A county sheriff enforcing a debt between neighbors, a constable serving an arrest warrant on horseback, or a lone night watchman carrying a lantern through his sleeping town. These organized practices were adapted to the colonies from England and formed the foundations of American law enforcement. However, there is another significant origin of American policing that we cannot forget—and that is slave patrols.”

They came from the job of sheriff and his deputies and constables and their deputies.

 

What an absolute abomination the OP is.

Heller was unanimous. All 9 Justices agreed the 2nd Amendment was an individual right. How in these formally free United States was the Bill of Rights all about Individual Freedoms, except the 2nd Amendment? Only a dishonest mental contortion could come to that conclusion. 1,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10.... Individual Rights... 2.... ummmmmm... Get out of here with that crap.

James Madison predicted the checks and balances will prevent tyranny, but if tyranny still prevailed, our Bill of Rights provides the ability to save the U.S. Constitution as the armed men would form militias and protect Liberty. That would be 100% impossible if the Democrats / Authoritarians had their way with the 2nd Amendment as we would have eliminated the ability to be armed and form militias. The Federalists Papers were also clear that they wanted the U.S. Citizen to be able to keep and bear arms equivalent to that of a Light Infantryman. That does not mean a grenade launcher, but the arm and we don't even have that, so real concessions have already been made.

Leftists are looking to disarm the honest freedom loving American. That's a non-starter and thank God for the founders protecting us from such tyranny with the 2nd Amendment.

 

We are not a Democracy. Period. We are a Nation of Laws, not of Mob Rule. Therefore, we are a Constitutional Republic. Democracy's are mob rule. Where do you get the idea we are a Democracy? No where in the Constitution does it say we are a democracy. We elect our leaders under the law and are ruled by law, The Constitution is supposed to be the highest law in the land, period. What it says goes. Not because the Democrat Party has more in Congress and runs the Presidency. It's Mark Levin, not Levine. And, he can outdebate anyone you want to put against him.

 

"I would say America is a federalist representative democratic republic..." So, what's your problem. You just stated the same thing I did. We are a democratic republic. Then, you say we aren't. Can you be anymore clueless than that? We are a nation of laws with the Constitution as the highest law of the land with only God higher as we are endowed by our creator. Even with all the "democracy elections" the laws of the states and federal government stand over mob rule in which a pure democracy is.

"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?" These are called "Republics." But, they are democracy with mob rule. Or, in other words, everyone in the minority shut up and take a seat! We are seeing that with the Democrat Party as they move further and further with their attempts to get rid of the Republican Party. Biden even said so in his so-called press conference. He doesn't think the Republican Party will exist in two years. And, the Democrats in Congress are trying desperately to make that happen. Mob rule. However, the people in most states aren't voting for Democrats as much as Republicans. We are a democratic republic or in other words, a Constitutional Republic or nation of laws, not tyrannical leaders like Pelosi, Schumer and Biden-Harris.

 

Damn, can't get one past you!

 

Your professors opinion might get you a cup of Joe at Micky Dee's. The other guy sat on the SC. The relevant one.

 

I hear a lot of crap about the glorification of militias, but, as the paper reveals, as time marched on, it became apparent that an armed citizenry was no match for a Continental Army owing the failure of militias, their ranks of amateurs, drunks, lack of discipline, which is precisely why militias were gradually abandoned in favor of the Continental Army. In other words, the entire point of the second amendment, as time progressed, on both fronts, on the 'slave patrol front' and 'armed citizenry' front, 2a is essentially moot. And what does Hamilton say of the militia? In federalist #29 he wrote:

The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people...and would form an annual deduction from the production of labor to the country to an amount which....would not fall short of a million pounds. The attention of the government ought to be particularly to the formation of a select corps, of moderate size, upon such principles as will really fit it for service in case of need. ​

 

And your opinion won't get a nickel for a pay toilet.

 

I'll value the opinion of a SC justice over your liberal propagandist.

 

As you wish. You would have made a stronger point by citing a professor of constitutional law. But I had to chuckle at "his argument adds an important dimension." That's professorspeak for: "Thanks but no thanks."

 

I agree slavery/bigotry has been and always will be a factor in firearm regulation/rights.

In one of these goofy threads started the last several days I had to point out the fact that the 13th Amendment allowing slavery to continue in the US is part of the reason felons can be denied rights to firearms.

My problem with the OP is the assertion that slavery was the “why of the 2A”. With all the discussion of standing armies, militias, power residing in the people, etc. in the Federalist Papers and other discussion leading up to the ratification of the Constitution and then all the debate over the Bill of Rights, clearly this assertion is not true. In fact, the idea perpetuation of slavery was the “why” of the 2A is clown shoes crazy in the face of all the evidence to the contrary.

 

Dude they were at best grossly misinterpreted. Until you get to the 20th century and the second Roosevelt Presidency. Please note everyone had guns west of the Appalachians. Mostly they were ex-military hardware that could be had for a song post civil war at least until they'd become obsolete.
Note studies of the Little Big Horn battlefield site suggest that the Indians were actually better armed than the Cavalry. Lever action Henry's and Winchester's as opposed to single shot sharps.

 

The only election in America that is not direct Democracy is President and VP. The reason this is so is that all the others are electing direct representatives that in theory are directly responsible to their electorate. The President represents all of us which is why the EC allows all of us to have a voice in choosing who will hold that office. We are all Americans but we are not all the same. We differ State to State much as Europeans differ country to country and we all like to be heard in Washington.

 

The militias evolved into the National Guard, which is controlled in each state by the governor.

 

Sure. You list “a” and “b”. The OP categorically denies “b”. Threads based on denial of incontrovertible evidence are hard for me to take seriously.

Without State’s rights none would have ratified the Constitution. But the idea the people are relegated to the position of least power and can be subjugated by state authority at will is not historically accurate either. The power was always to be seated with the people. The 2A itself is quite clear in that respect.

On this point we agree. State rights have eroded since the Civil War. Today people want basically no State rights—not even the Constitutionally granted right for States to elect presidents.

 

Supposing that all were true, what does it mean today? Is this the argument you would use to explain to the descendants of black slaves why they now shouldn't be able to arm themselves?

for context:
"The history of gun ownership in the United States was dramatically different for African Americans. Since the beginning of the birth of the United States all citizens have had the option to exercise their free will in purchasing or not purchasing a gun for self defense and/or hunting. The exception to that rule was African Americans. Black Codes or laws were put into place in just about every State preventing African Americans from legally owning any type of firearm or weapon. These laws were used to oppress and control African-American populations, especially in the Southern States."
...
"Presently 19% of African Americans nationwide own firearms. Since at least 2015, this percentage has grown, with doctors, lawyers, dentists, business men and women, plumbers, single moms, republicans, democrats, and many more all becoming active firearm owners in today’s society. The perception and reality of African Americans owning guns is changing. In 2012, the Pew Research Center conducted a national survey and found that only 29% of African-American households viewed guns as positive. In 2015, that same survey showed a dramatic jump to 59% where now a majority of African-American families see guns as not only a positive thing but, in many cases, a necessity. In today’s society, every member of our community, if they want, can legally purchase a gun. African Americans in record numbers are now joining gun clubs, going to the gun range, participating in outdoor hunting, and even participating in competitive shooting events. Single Black women are now one of the fastest growing demographic groups in the African-American community who are purchasing guns for protection. The future is bright for active firearm ownership within our community now and for years to come."

Black Tradition of Arms - NAAGA

Generally, I don't think racism is a very big problem in the US... but it is very interesting how the more black people embrace the 2A, the harder certain white people try to undermine it...

 

Ridiculous. Laws and democracy are not incongrous, where DO YOU GET THAT IDEA?

We have elections.

This idea that of 165 million votes cast, that 81 million are the majority, which you consider 'mob rule' and this idea that 73 million is NOT a mob?

What a stupid statement that is. That s so dumb I don't even know where to begin.

Where do they have elections?

in a democracy

OUR OWN GOVERNMENT, THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, DECLARES ITS SO

****ING READ IT

https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/lesson-plans/Government_and_You_handouts.pdf

"The united states is a representative democracy".

See, 'Constitutional Republic" and "representative democracy are the same damn thing.

A republic merely connotes a government as opposed to a monarchy, of either appointed OR elected officials.

America is known, since its inception, as a 'liberal democracy'.

In America, we vote. We vote for our president, we vote for governor, mayors, LT governors, State AGs, and on and on and on.

Note that "Constitutional Republic and liberal democracy are not incongruity.

There is no debate on that point, and your pov is ludicrous and held only by the ignorant.

Now go away.