cross-posted from: https://reddthat.com/post/50514110
The founders’ true intent behind the right to bear arms wasn’t liberty—it was control, oppression, and the preservation of slavery.
The title claims that the purpose of the 2A was for slavers. But the actual argument is that the 2A was changed to appease slavers. Doesn’t that imply that the 2A preexisted the slaver’s concern and may have had other purposes?
I’m skeptical because there has been a revisionist movement that argues the whole war of independence was to preserve slavery, an argument that is not compelling. I’m also suspicious of an editorial, written like a history, with no citations.
Lastly, arguing over the intentions of the framers is a reactionary game. The problem with the 2A is not what it was intended to do in the 18th Century, but what it’s actually doing in the 21st.
I’m pretty sure it was because of the wars with England in the first half of the 19th century in which the White House was burnt down.
There was also the Landholder Movement which was inspired by the removal of the right for Churls to own weapons by William the Conqueror in 1066. The Churl class was abolished effectively when the King’s protection for property was extended to villeins.
I’m with you, but let’s get rid of the fascists before we disarm ourselves, okay?
Sorry to say “be careful who you vote for” but chances are if you are a resident of a blue state it is probably a lot more difficult to arm yourself.
Edit: really I should say it’s a lot more difficult legally*. If you go the illegal route it’s pretty easy to get nearly anything you want. Just ask your local drug dealer.
My local drug dealer has no idea where to get an illegal gun. My ex GD coworker however…
There were two primary reasons for the second amendment:
The first reason was, as the article lays out effectively, the codification of slave militias in the South, preventing (in theory) the North from manumission by way of military service in the North. The South, like the Confederates of the 19th century, like the ones today, were paranoid and motivated by fear of loss of property and power, both of which were built on the systematic dehumanization of out-groups. This mentality has existed in America for over 400 years. I could write an entire thesis on how this fear informs today’s gun culture…
More practically, they needed to enforce a police state in order to avoid getting murdered by the people they enslaved. (You can see in the article above how Patrick Henry refers to the danger to the “people of Virginia” in the event of slave insurrections; like all Southern slavers, he literally did not consider the slaves themselves to be people.)
The second reason was to avoid the cost and threat to democracy of a standing army, informed by the experiences of a recent war that relied on these local militias. They had previously had first-hand experience how an authoritarian (King George III) could wield power against the population through the use of a standing army, which is why the Constitution only specified the power to raise an army for a limited time (a period of up to two years [1]).
When Confederates talk about the need for state militias to resist tyranny (albeit apparently only tyranny they don’t approve of), they’re obliquely correct. But ensuring the legal basis to continue to operate a police state to enforce slavery was also a primary factor.
[1] Incidentally, the legal framework for a standing army despite the clear intent of the Constitution itself is Congress’s regular defense appropriations bills.
The 2nd was written because we just finished fighting and winning a war against a military with private arms. This idea that it was about keeping slavery going is bullshit. It was used against slaves during the civil war, but stop trying to make it into something it wasn’t to try and drive a point that the 2nd is somehow a racist idea.
There is a reason a very large part of 2A supporters want minorities armed. Hell even the shitty NRA recently came out and said they don’t support disarming trans people.
As a start, you can try reading the article you’re commenting on.
I did, the article is wrong. It’s another “we need to disarm ourselves cause guns r bad”…just this one uses race to try and push that narrative.
Race? Funny thing is America had white slaves oh sorry indentured servants. Then when the lower class revolted they put us against each other and it’s been working ever since.
This is my TIL. Yeah, wow. I guess that had some unintended consequences. So now they gotta come out with ways to prevent trans and other minorities from getting armed?
In Mexico being armed is illegal. But everyone has some at home. Its a weird situation when everyone looks the same. In Mexico they have levels of brown. Negrito or black person for example vs Oaxacan…one is very dark skinned, the other is short and brown probably due to Filipino/Chinese trade routes thru the area. So unfortunately this racism thing doesn’t stop on its own when everyone becomes brown. We have to actively work towards a better future.
That’s really why I and everyone else loves the USA. We’re a melting pot. You are a person who mattera here. Its an idea that other countries need to follow. For that reason, it’s super sad to see all this getting eroded almost as quickly as the seasons are passing. Now we have to fear saying anything.
