The racist history behind the Second Amendment

[bellisarius]

Stupid compounds itself.

The whole of ALL able bodied male citizens comprised the "militia." There was no fixed group that ran around militiaing.

The men of color that owned slaves were just as diligent in hunting down their 'property' as any of the white slave owners and the white owners helped them.

Mr. Spencer has already demonstrated that the "professor" that wrote that book is a dolt. The only reasons that black/women/native american, martian invader studies exist is to provide a means for mediocre students to bolster their GPA and so that the various universities can attract minorities so as to separate them from their government backed student loans. There is nothing of any practical or lasting value to be obtained taking those courses.

 

[pecksniff]

Stupid compounds itself.

The whole of ALL able bodied male citizens comprised the "militia." There was no fixed group that ran around militiaing.

I doubt the militias of that period included blacks, even free blacks. Certainly they did not include slaves. Or Indians.

That quote from Acton makes you -- and him -- look like an idiot.

 

[Lazaran]

.
So we can all agree that the second amendment was influenced by the desires of slave owners to police their slave populations.

The "well regulated militias" wording basically codified slave patrols, which were the original "police" who "patrolled".

Great bit of historical fact.

*nods*

 

[bellisarius]

I doubt the militias of that period included blacks, even free blacks. Certainly they did not include slaves. Or Indians.

That quote from Acton makes you -- and him -- look like an idiot.

"I doubt" is an opinion with no basis in fact. Free men of color ARE considered part of the militia in the LEGAL meaning of the word.

Stating that slaves and Indians weren't part of the militia (again in the legal meaning of the word) is just more meaningless drivel in that neither were citizens. Slaves were property no different than horses or mules and the Indians were citizens of their own Nations.

 

[pecksniff]

"I doubt" is an opinion with no basis in fact. Free men of color ARE considered part of the militia in the LEGAL meaning of the word.

Stating that slaves and Indians weren't part of the militia (again in the legal meaning of the word) is just more meaningless drivel in that neither were citizens. Slaves were property no different than horses or mules and the Indians were citizens of their own Nations.

The point being, that, therefore, militias could be used against either.

 

[bellisarius]

The point being, that, therefore, militias could be used against either.

The point being that now you're just arguing for the sake of argument and neither you nor the author of that bull shit have any point at all.

 

[pecksniff]

The point being that now you're just arguing for the sake of argument and neither you nor the author of that bull shit have any point at all.

The point is that the 2A is an anachronism we no longer need. The original imperatives for it -- to prepare to put down slave revolts, and to facilitate a militia-based national defense system -- no longer apply. Home defense was not one of the original imperatives, and insurrection certainly was not.

 

[Rightguide]

No, but I wouldn't be surprised if there was one -- I know the Cherokee made an effort to copy the whites in all respects, including keeping slaves. They even set up a constitutional republic with a law code. It didn't save them when the whites decided they wanted their land.

Many Indian tribes had black slaves, white slaves, Mexican slaves, and Indian slaves. The Cherokees had 4000 black slaves they had to divest themselves of in the treaty of 1866, that was the Indian treaty Yale didn't want to soil their web page with. The one I noticed was missing when Fuzzy owned himself attempting to educate me on the subject of treaties.

 

[Rightguide]

I doubt the militias of that period included blacks, even free blacks. Certainly they did not include slaves. Or Indians.

That quote from Acton makes you -- and him -- look like an idiot.

Go here. and read about the Cherokee "militia" formed to track down escaped slaves:

https://www.blackpast.org/african-american-history/slave-revolt-cherokee-nation-1842/

 

[Rightguide]

The point is that the 2A is an anachronism we no longer need. The original imperatives for it -- to prepare to put down slave revolts, and to facilitate a militia-based national defense system -- no longer apply. Home defense was not one of the original imperatives, and insurrection certainly was not.

Actually it is needed now more than ever.

 

[Rightguide]

The point being, that, therefore, militias could be used against either.

The entire association of the Second Amendment with the creation of a militia is total bullshit. The Bill of Rights isn't a catalog of new governmental power to create a militia. That was already done in Article I, Section 8, clauses 15 and 16. It simply amends those clauses to affirm the personal right to keep and bear arms by citizens.

 

[CornusKousa]

The point is that the 2A is an anachronism we no longer need.

^^ not true.

The need for self defense will likely never be an anachronism.

Actually it is needed now more than ever.

Yup....keeps the authoritarian control freaks like Peck, in check.

 

[Bud_Spencer]

^^ not true.

The need for self defense will likely never be an anachronism.



Yup....keeps the authoritarian control freaks like Peck, in check.

But you need F-15s and nukes to do that!

Never mind that the "greatest military in the world" is leaving no trace in Afghanistan after 20 fucking years there, being chased out by some goat herders from the 7th Century.

But hey. we got trannies in the military now, so it's all good.

 

[CornusKousa]

But you need F-15s and nukes to do that!

Never mind that the "greatest military in the world" is leaving no trace in Afghanistan after 20 fucking years there, being chased out by some goat herders from the 7th Century.

But hey. we got trannies in the military now, so it's all good.

And we killed a fucking shit load of them too.....decisively won damn near if not every fucking battle. Unbelievable kill ratios never before seen, not even close.

Lost the war though.

I said it after I invaded it and spent my first year there, anyone who knows a fucking thing about those people would know it's an all in proposition. If we weren't at the bare minimum 100% ready to kill everyone and committed to settling Afghanistan as state #51??

We should have stayed home. Occupation and conversion via hearts and minds was a fools mission.

Maybe a JSOC/SOCOM base to do HVT raids out of, but nothing like what we did.

 

[pecksniff]

Yup....keeps the authoritarian control freaks like Peck, in check.

Your firearms keep nothing in check.

 

[CornusKousa]

Your firearms keep nothing in check.

That must be why you're SOOOOOO hard for getting rid of them then hua???

They did a great job at putting Jihadi scum in check...they'll do a fine job at putting anti-American leftist mobs and various other groups of racist fuckwads in check too.

When social justice meets natural law.....watch out bubba!!

 

[vastiesmith100]

you're an ass

and you are the true racist on here. You're also a lying fuck.

 

[Rightguide]

And we killed a fucking shit load of them too.....decisively won damn near if not every fucking battle. Unbelievable kill ratios never before seen, not even close.

Lost the war though.

I said it after I invaded it and spent my first year there, anyone who knows a fucking thing about those people would know it's an all in proposition. If we weren't at the bare minimum 100% ready to kill everyone and committed to settling Afghanistan as state #51??

We should have stayed home. Occupation and conversion via hearts and minds was a fools mission.

Maybe a JSOC/SOCOM base to do HVT raids out of, but nothing like what we did.

Should have been nothing more than a brutal punitive expedition to lay waste to every citizen presenting an armed response, and the destruction in detail of the country's infrastructure, lasting no more than ten months to a year and then leaving a warning we would return to finish the job if provoked further.

 

[pecksniff]

Should have been nothing more than a brutal punitive expedition to lay waste to every citizen presenting an armed response, and the destruction in detail of the country's infrastructure, lasting no more than ten months to a year and then leaving a warning we would return to finish the job if provoked further.

Why destroy the infrastructure? People live on that.

 

[Rightguide]

Why destroy the infrastructure? People live on that.

They harbored the people who attacked our country. They needed to share in the retribution. A hundred years or so of rebuilding mud brick walls would keep them out of mischief.

PS: Should have totally defoliated their poppy fields as well as sown the ground with salt, like the Romans did in Carthage.

 

[pecksniff]

They harbored the people who attacked our country. They needed to share in the retribution. A hundred years or so of rebuilding mud brick walls would keep them out of mischief.

PS: Should have totally defoliated their poppy fields as well as sown the ground with salt, like the Romans did in Carthage.

The world needs that opium. There is a legitimate market for it.

The Romans did no such thing in Carthage -- salt was to expensive to be used so.

 

[CornusKousa]

Should have been nothing more than a brutal punitive expedition to lay waste to every citizen presenting an armed response, and the destruction in detail of the country's infrastructure, lasting no more than ten months to a year and then leaving a warning we would return to finish the job if provoked further.

Also acceptable.

Why destroy the infrastructure? People live on that.

Exactly.

That's the point.

 

[Rightguide]

The world needs that opium. There is a legitimate market for it.

The Romans did no such thing in Carthage -- salt was to expensive to be used so.

Notice the big grin in that post. I used the Roman myth as a rhetorical device I knew would send you scurrying to Wiki. The myth actually goes back to the 13th Century and Pope Boniface VIII when he described his sacking of the city of Palestrina. Saying, "I subjected it to the plough, following the example of Carthage of old in Africa,' we also made salt in it, and commanded that it be sown over, so that it should have neither the condition, nor name, nor title of a city.' Later historians picked it up and it had a life of it's own in history until the late 20th Century.

Though the Romans had captured the Carthaginian salt works in North Africa, There's no proof any of it was used to sow the fields of Carthage. The brutal disassembly and sacking of Carthage, the selling into slavery 300 children belonging to the city's royalty, and the killing of thousands of it's population, are all true.

 

[pecksniff]

Exactly.

That's the point.

We didn't go in seeking a Carthaginian peace. Our grievance was solely against the ruling party.

 

[Rightguide]

We didn't go in seeking a Carthaginian peace. Our grievance was solely against the ruling party.

And the terrorists populating their geography.