An interesting article points out that the 2nd Amendment was not intended to provide for home self defense (as Scalia claims), or to keep the federal government in check (as right wingers claim), but to enforce the ability of Southern states to keep blacks from rising out of slavery.
Yet another attempt by Fred to deflect using made up facts. Let's keep on the topic of the 2nd Amendment and why it was added to the Bill of Rights. How Patrick Henry and others forced Madison to draft the 2nd Amendment to allow the STATES (not the federal) to keep well regulated militias to patrol for runaway slaves and to prevent an uprising of slaves.
"Remember to always be yourself. Unless you can be batman. Then always be batman." Unknown
Like I said, why is this info only coming out now. The Bill of Rights is over 200 years old and now this historian comes up with this. Sounds a little suspicious.
If it was only passed for half the country, why is it so prominent?
Militias were formed to fight the British in 1812 and fight the Confederates in 1861, volunteers grabbed or bought their own weapons.
But the Dog reading a liberal prof thinks the 2nd Amendment only passed to protect slaveholders from their slaves. More gullible.
I think keeping the slaves down might have been part of why it was passed but to think it was predominant is silly.
We had Indians on the Frontier, Abraham Lincoln was part of the militia. It wasn't all about slave revolts.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
The view discussed in the link is an interesting one, and is certainly one that bears further study. It is not a recent discussion as shown in the 1998 thesis. It is interesting that the 2nd amendment was intended to preserve the rights of states to regulate militias, not for central defense to the country as argued by individual rights supporters.
"Remember to always be yourself. Unless you can be batman. Then always be batman." Unknown
But all the other Bill of Rights are written to support individual rights over goverment, but you think the 2nd is the exception to the rule, supporting states rights over federal?
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
Something the Dog Said wrote: The view discussed in the link is an interesting one, and is certainly one that bears further study. It is not a recent discussion as shown in the 1998 thesis. It is interesting that the 2nd amendment was intended to preserve the rights of states to regulate militias, not for central defense to the country as argued by individual rights supporters.
It was for states to maintain militias in order to keep the Federal government from becoming tyrannical.
Makes more sense than the pro-slavery angle to me, especially given that they had just thrown off a tyrannical government when they wrote it.
"Whatever you are, be a good one." ~ Abraham Lincoln
FredHayek wrote: But all the other Bill of Rights are written to support individual rights over goverment, but you think the 2nd is the exception to the rule, supporting states rights over federal?
The 10th amendment was written to support states rights over federal rights in certain instances, so is that also an exception to the rule?
"Remember to always be yourself. Unless you can be batman. Then always be batman." Unknown
FredHayek wrote: But all the other Bill of Rights are written to support individual rights over goverment, but you think the 2nd is the exception to the rule, supporting states rights over federal?
The 10th amendment was written to support states rights over federal rights in certain instances, so is that also an exception to the rule?
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The 10th amendment was written to to support states rights over federal rights in ALL cases except those specified in the Constitution ans being Federal.
"Whatever you are, be a good one." ~ Abraham Lincoln
Something the Dog Said wrote: The view discussed in the link is an interesting one, and is certainly one that bears further study. It is not a recent discussion as shown in the 1998 thesis. It is interesting that the 2nd amendment was intended to preserve the rights of states to regulate militias, not for central defense to the country as argued by individual rights supporters.
It was for states to maintain militias in order to keep the Federal government from becoming tyrannical.
Makes more sense than the pro-slavery angle to me, especially given that they had just thrown off a tyrannical government when they wrote it.
Where is your support for that allegation? The history of the 2nd amendment does not support that view. In fact, the only crime discussed in the Constitution is against taking up arms against the government. The slavery argument certainly makes more sense the argument that it allows citizens to commit treason.
"Remember to always be yourself. Unless you can be batman. Then always be batman." Unknown
More gullible.
