The Second Amendment was Ratified to Preserve Slavery - Page 2

The Second Amendment was Ratified to Preserve Slavery

This is a discussion on The Second Amendment was Ratified to Preserve Slavery within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Hartman also wrote this article. He calls Sandy Hook the defining moment in Obama's Presidency, and he must act swiftly and eliminate all those evil ...

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 58
Like Tree78Likes

Thread: The Second Amendment was Ratified to Preserve Slavery

  1. #16
    VIP Member Array zonker1986's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Orlando, Florida
    Posts
    3,691
    Hartman also wrote this article. He calls Sandy Hook the defining moment in Obama's Presidency, and he must act swiftly and eliminate all those evil
    assault weapons so we as a society can move forward in peace and tranquility. Typical liberal.....absolutely no logical thought process going on between his
    ears, and writes with total emotion and lack of common sense.

    Sandy Hook and President Obama?s Shared Legacy

    since the only legacy Obama is going to be remembered for thus far is 6 trillion more debt in his first four years with another 6 on the way, turning our
    country into a socialist cesspool, out of control spending, a bloated health care plan that will bankrupt the country, absolutely a worthless economic
    policy with no job creation in the first four years, pathetic foreign policy other than bowing down before other world leaders, fooling the middle class
    and increasing taxes on them while pointing the finger at the evil rich, and taking more vacations and playing more golf than any President in history.

    No, I doubt Sandy Hook will be remembered as Obama's legacy regardless the outcome of the Assault Weapons Ban, but when you fail at everything else,
    you grasp for straws.....and 20 dead children is a pretty pathetic subject to base your Presidential Legacy any way you slice it.
    Kimbers are the guns you show your friends....Glocks are the ones you show your enemies.


  2. #17
    Member Array sebring's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    164
    The second amendment was ratified to preserve the federal government as a slave to the people.

  3. #18
    Senior Member Array kerberos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    747
    The problem here mrreynolds is that you didn't use the quote commands when you posted the first paragraph of the article...

    Next time please use quotes so we don't confuse referenced material for your own thoughts
    Keeps things a little more civil.

    "Death is lighter than a feather, but Duty is heavier than a mountain" Robert Jordan
    USMC veteran
    Glock 19 Gen 4
    Si hoc legere scis, nimis eruditionis habes

  4. #19
    Senior Member Array mrreynolds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    620
    Quote Originally Posted by kerberos View Post
    The problem here mrreynolds is that you didn't use the quote commands when you posted the first paragraph of the article...



    Keeps things a little more civil.

    Thank you for that wise counsel. Much appreciated.

  5. #20
    Senior Member Array stanislaskasava's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    U.S.
    Posts
    1,121
    Quote Originally Posted by mrreynolds View Post
    I didn't endorse anything I posted a link to an article I've posted links to articles about the NY Safe Act 2013 is that an endorsement? Some of you individuals are worse than the anti's when you disagree with something. I brought it up because I could.
    "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

    The words of the Second Amendment actually include explanation and justification for it's explicit reservation of The People's right to keep and bear weapons. A 'well regulated' militia is necessary to keep the states secure. Therefore, no infringement is allowed.

    At the time, it was Federal infringement that was prohibited. Now, via the 14th Amendment, the Bill of Rights restricts state government as well.

    Slavery is illegal in America. It has been for quite some time. It has nothing to do with Our right to keep or bear arms. We have that natural right from God, and it is explicitly reserved in the supreme law of our country.

    Anyone who attempts to infringe our natural right of self defense is promoting New Slavery. Slavery to government masters. AKA tyranny. New Slavery isn't just for Black people. In fact, we have a Black tyrant as president now. We all have to stand together to defeat New Slavery, whether we are Black or White, rich or poor. American Freedom is under attack.

    Whoever wrote this article is probably intending to stir up the negative feelings associated with slavery and link them to modern gun owners. Clearly this is deceptive, manipulative and evil. These are the tactics of tyrants and enemies of freedom and we need to expose them.

  6. #21
    Member Array GunsAndViolince's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Northern Michigan
    Posts
    332
    I like devilsclaw's statement about repealing the Second Amendment: I have tried to make this point myself with people I know. If guns really are so bad, and the 2A really is outdated and the cause of all our current problems, then try to repeal it. For someone who really believes that guns should go, this would be the way to do it legally, rather than by abusing executive orders, or with sneaky backroom deals to limit something they know they can't take away by any other means.

    I know this seems like a 'dangerous' strategy, but I have found that in 'debates' it allows me to focus on the current law of the land (as someone else seeking to change it should) and challenge them to really look at it with a serious effort to understand it. It also makes me look like a reasonable person (which I at least aspire to be) by saying, "Sure, let's have that discussion, beginning with the facts, verifiable statistics and the law, leaving emotion out of it." Every time I've taken this approach, I have left the other person thinking as opposed to feeling, and also, quite importantly, on good terms with me. That's important because a person is more likely to seriously consider the words of someone of whom he or she has a more positive impression, as opposed to a negative one. I sometimes even manage, when talking about the bravery of those who stood up to the British and founded our nation, to stir up a patriotic spirit in them they either didn't know they had or had forgotten about.

  7. #22
    Senior Member Array kerberos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    747
    Emotion is the enemy of reason...

    Rock and Glock likes this.
    "Death is lighter than a feather, but Duty is heavier than a mountain" Robert Jordan
    USMC veteran
    Glock 19 Gen 4
    Si hoc legere scis, nimis eruditionis habes

  8. #23
    VIP Member Array cmdrdredd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Posts
    2,037
    One of the most ridiculous and idiotic things I have ever read. I am dumber for having read it.
    No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
    -Thomas Jefferson

    Laws are restrictive but sometimes necessary to maintain a civil society. Rights are nonrestrictive but are always necessary to maintain a free society.

  9. #24
    VIP Member
    Array OPFOR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Nomad
    Posts
    4,713
    There are numerous problems with that article. The first, and most egregious, is that is assumes that "slave patrols" were the single, only, and complete reason for the existence of the militia. This is laughable on its face. The second major problem is that it then concludes (from the fatally flawed assumption that militia = slave patrol) that ONLY southern representatives wanted something in the bill to support the right to bear arms, and that the ONLY reason for this was so that they could continue to mount these patrols. It is a flawed conclusion, based on completely faulty suppositions. In short, it's complete BS.

    Here are some other early versions of the 2A, not just the one the author cherry picked (though even that one doesn't support his conclusion): From wiki.

    Earlier proposals and drafts of the Amendment

    And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.

    Samuel Adams, (February 6, 1788), reported in Charles Hale, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (1856), p. 86. This language was proposed in the Massachusetts convention for ratification of the U.S. Constitution to be added to Article I of that document.

    The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

    Original text of what was to become the Second Amendment, as brought to the floor to the first session of the first congress of the U.S. House of Representatives. original text

    A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.

    Reworded version of the Second Amendment by the select committee on the Bill of Rights, July 28th 1789. AoC pp. 669).

    A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

    Draft version of the Second Amendment sent by the House of Representatives to the United States Senate, on August 24th, 1789. (Note: When the Amendment was transcribed, the semicolon in the religious exemption portion was changed to a comma by the Senate scribe).

    A well regulated militia, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed

    Revision voted on in the U.S. Senate, September 4th, 1789.

    A well regulated militia being the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

    Final version passed by the U.S. Senate; the phrase "necessary to" was added when the proposed Amendment was entered into the U.S. House journal.
    It is very common for the word "state" and the word "country" to be synonymous, and I believe that they are in this context. The version of the Bill of Rights ratified by the states and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson (the Secretary of State) uses the word "state" with a lower case "s" in the 2A. When the authors of the Constitution wanted state to mean "a singular US State," they capitalized the word State. See the 10th Amendment: "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." That the word is not capitalized could be seen to support the idea that "state" and "country" are the same word for the purposes of the amendment.

    Furthermore, the 2A uses the phrase "the people" to indicate who shall not have their rights infringed. The authors use this phrase in several other places, and in ALL of those places it is understood that it means, in fact, THE PEOPLE. Not a State, not the state, but the people. The right of THE PEOPLE to be secure in their effects... The right of THE PEOPLE to peaceably assemble... That the authors used this phrase, and not "the state," or "the States," or "the militia," and certainly not "the slave patrols" should bear sure witness to what they intended it to mean. And it isn't "the right of slave patrols to be armed shall not be infringed."

    The author of this article is, to put it bluntly, a liar bent on manipulating "history" to further his own political agenda.
    A man fires a rifle for many years, and he goes to war. And afterward he turns the rifle in at the armory, and he believes he's finished with the rifle. But no matter what else he might do with his hands - love a woman, build a house, change his son's diaper - his hands remember the rifle.

  10. #25
    VIP Member Array cphilip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    2,187
    Quote Originally Posted by drbald1 View Post
    You didn't write it, but you endorsed it. If you've got a problem taking heat for taking a stance, a public forum is not the place to post that stance.

    Personally, I don't care if you're African American, Native American, Irish American, Samoan American, or Undetermined American. Your genetic racial makeup has nothing to do with the historical accuracy of the article. Why would you even bring it up?
    I don't see anywhere that the OP endorsed it. He simply brought it up for discussion. And I am glad he did because several of my Antigun friends have been passing it around. What always derails them is that there is so much written by the Authors of the Constitution when they were debating this they simply have no leg to stand on as to why it is included in the Constitution.

    And speaking of that, to even remove it would not remove the fact that the right exists. The Right exists without the constitution. They are are not created by the constitution. They are the right of every human by his/her shear existence. The constitution just recognizes that fact and precludes our government from infringing upon them. You can take it out all you want and it would still be so that we have a right to self defense with whatever device is prevalent at the given time necessary to meet force with equal force. It matters not what others and governments do. The right is unchanged.

  11. #26
    VIP Member
    Array TX expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    3,852
    Quote Originally Posted by cphilip View Post
    And speaking of that, to even remove it would not remove the fact that the right exists. The Right exists without the constitution. They are are not created by the constitution. They are the right of every human by his/her shear existence. The constitution just recognizes that fact and precludes our government from infringing upon them. You can take it out all you want and it would still be so that we have a right to self defense with whatever device is prevalent at the given time necessary to meet force with equal force. It matters not what others and governments do. The right is unchanged.
    Actually this is incorrect. You may think you were born with these "rights" but if you had been born just about anywhere else on the planet, you wouldn't have them. The Founding Fathers recognized what they believed to be the natural "rights" that man possessed. They addressed them in a legal framework because they were all too familiar with the fact that those rights could be taken away. They molded the entire structure of our national government with the intent of making clear where the government they created wouldn't be allowed to tread. If you take away the legal right to keep and bear arms, the idea of that right becomes irrelevant.
    NRA Life Member

    "I don't believe gun owners have rights." - Sarah Brady

  12. #27
    VIP Member Array cmdrdredd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Posts
    2,037

    re: The Second Amendment was Ratified to Preserve Slavery

    Quote Originally Posted by TX expat View Post
    Actually this is incorrect. You may think you were born with these "rights" but if you had been born just about anywhere else on the planet, you wouldn't have them. The Founding Fathers recognized what they believed to be the natural "rights" that man possessed. They addressed them in a legal framework because they were all too familiar with the fact that those rights could be taken away. They molded the entire structure of our national government with the intent of making clear where the government they created wouldn't be allowed to tread. If you take away the legal right to keep and bear arms, the idea of that right becomes irrelevant.
    I believe that you always have them but on some countries you are a criminal for believing that and exercising it.

    Sent via telepathy on a Galaxy S3
    No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
    -Thomas Jefferson

    Laws are restrictive but sometimes necessary to maintain a civil society. Rights are nonrestrictive but are always necessary to maintain a free society.

  13. #28
    Senior Member Array mrreynolds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    620
    Quote Originally Posted by cphilip View Post
    I don't see anywhere that the OP endorsed it. He simply brought it up for discussion. And I am glad he did because several of my Antigun friends have been passing it around. What always derails them is that there is so much written by the Authors of the Constitution when they were debating this they simply have no leg to stand on as to why it is included in the Constitution.

    And speaking of that, to even remove it would not remove the fact that the right exists. The Right exists without the constitution. They are are not created by the constitution. They are the right of every human by his/her shear existence. The constitution just recognizes that fact and precludes our government from infringing upon them. You can take it out all you want and it would still be so that we have a right to self defense with whatever device is prevalent at the given time necessary to meet force with equal force. It matters not what others and governments do. The right is unchanged.
    I appreciate that comment and I did not post this to start a racial issue. Let's be realistic during that era which of the two groups needed equality more. It's nice to be a Patriot but some of us in America have a hard time looking in their histories mirror as the son of an African American Vietnam vet my father was sent abroad to fight only to return to a Country where the same fight was needed. It's not a racial fact it's just the truth. I love that founding fathers statement as it always makes me say none of those mainstream men were my father or grandfather, etc that's just reality.

  14. #29
    VIP Member
    Array TX expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    3,852
    Quote Originally Posted by cmdrdredd View Post
    I believe that you always have them but on some countries you are a criminal for believing that and exercising it.

    Sent via telepathy on a Galaxy S3
    In your mind, sure, but I'll put it to you this way: If I give you some SCUBA gear you can breathe under water. If I take the apparatus away, you can continue to think you can breathe under water all you want, but it won't stop you from drowning.
    NRA Life Member

    "I don't believe gun owners have rights." - Sarah Brady

  15. #30
    Distinguished Member Array Exacto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    1,630
    The left wing propaganda machine will be if it's not already, working overtime to fool the ignorant masses, ie Obama voters, with lies and demonization of the 2A ,in an attempt to get the majority of ignorant on the anti gun side of the issue, and further divide the American people. It worked to get him elected, and they think it will work for them on this "gun control" which is really people control issue.Lies, deceit, trickery, character assassination, manipulation, it's their M.O. The most corrupt out of control administration in the history of our Country. We have a delusional, self engrandizing,narcissistic,egomaniac ,power hungry,king George wanna be at the helm.
    Let your plans be dark and impenetrable as night, and when you move, fall like a thunder bolt...... Sun Tzu.

    The supreme art of war is to defeat the enemy without fighting........ Sun Tzu.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

2nd amendment preserve slavery
,
2nd amendment slavery facts
,
2nd amendment was not ratified to preserve slavery
,
did second amendment start with slavery?
,
hartman gun slave
,
ratified second amendment
,
second amendment was not ratified slavery
,

second ammendmant was not radified to perserve slavery

,
slave patrols 2nd amendment
,
slavery and the second amendment
,
the second amendment was ratified to preserve slaver
,
was the 2nd amendment written to preserve slavery
Click on a term to search for related topics.