The Second Amendment was Ratified to Preserve Slavery - Page 4

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; Originally Posted by mrreynolds I'm not here to enforce what I believe let people make their own choices based on whatever actual facts exist. I'll ...

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 46 to 58 of 58
Like Tree78Likes

Thread: The Second Amendment was Ratified to Preserve Slavery

  1. #46
    Member Array Crowbait's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Western Missouri
    Posts
    402
    Quote Originally Posted by mrreynolds View Post
    I'm not here to enforce what I believe let people make their own choices based on whatever actual facts exist. I'll tell you what I know back at that time those who were en-slaved had no rights. Once they were technically no longer en-slaved they were not allowed to own arms or even dogs for self defense. I have not yet researched the background of the article but I know that those who did en-slave people had no desire to arm them at any point or time. The en-slaved were the people who were infringed but history won't tell the story that way. I believe the Constitution and Amendments would reflect the era in which they were created and could have been slanted at that time.
    Thank you Mr. Reynolds for sharing this video,excellent post Sir. I think that it speaks even more loudly to many Anti's due to the fact that it is specifically speaking about Blacks/Minorities and has Black spokespeople in the video. On top of that, they make many if not all of the same points and connections about firearms violence and the shortcomings of gun control that the 2A crowd does but, most of the Anti's don't see Blacks or other Minorities as your typical proponents of the 2A. So, I think it speaks that much louder. Again, great post. I'll be sending this to as many Anti's as I can.

    -Russell
    A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government. --George Washington


  2. #47
    Senior Member Array mrreynolds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    620
    I do what I can for the cause.

  3. #48
    Member Array Crowbait's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Western Missouri
    Posts
    402
    Quote Originally Posted by Eagleks View Post
    Want to talk History, the Democratic Party controlled the South, they did not want general "gun ownership" by blacks, either free - blacks nor enslaved blacks.... they wanted to be able to keep control and be the only one's in possession of the guns. Plus they did not want blacks to turn on their Masters, freed blacks to serve some retribution, nor trusted free blacks from giving the others guns. However, in the North..... blacks not only could, but did own guns. There were NO laws against it at all.

    Now .... jump ahead , which party still wants to "ban guns" ? And what Party is it who controls DC and Chicago, and bans guns ? Is not DC and Chicago predominately black in terms of population ... and who's keeping them "still" from owning guns ? The Democratic Party . What "party" predominantly controlled all Southern politics ... the Dem's. So, let's keep on track... the founders did consider black men ... "as men"..... and had the same rights as anyone else..... per se. However, the SOUTH did not want that .... and fought against blacks having the vote, owning guns, etc.... and was / is the ancestor of the Democratic Party. In order to get the Constitution there were some gives and takes, but ..... only to get the Constitution passed. The 14th Amendment was to end any further discrimination on voting rights, etc. of blacks.
    However..... blacks always had "VOTING" rights..... only in the South (Dem's) tried to push literacy laws, etc. for people to be able to vote.

    My ancestors .... along 6 family lines have lived in America since the 1680's....... in one family line, they maintained an underground railroad from over 100 years, so please.... .. they were there for 100 + years fighting for the things that ended up being in the Constitution (most of these ideas began being generated in mid-1600's in England) , and fought for 'no discrimination ' of any man. One of my Great -XXXXXXX grandfathers, was shot in the back while trying to stop British soldiers from raping his wife and daughter, and as a result..... word got to the fields, and all of the men armed.... and went to town and ended up killing all of the British Soldiers. It was one of the first battles in the Revolution..... when people had decided, "enough is enough".

    When people try to make our founders look like all bigoted slave owners, they could not be further from the truth. One of them, was one of my ancestors, and several of them thru several generations served in the Continental Congress from 1702 up to and after when the Constitution was done. I have read their personal letters that are still around, writings, etc.

    YOU Sir, are WRONG ... Blacks could 'own' guns..... hate to disappoint you, but there were blacks who also fought in and served in the Continental Army during the Revolution.
    Eagle,
    check out the video Mr. Reynolds posted, it confirms many of your statements as well as confirming that Mr. Reynolds didn't necessarily mean what you may have thought he meant. I agree with you 100% though, it seriously rubs me the wrong way when people make ALL of our "fathers" look like a bunch of bigoted slave owners. Some most certainly were but most I would say weren't.

    -Russell
    A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government. --George Washington

  4. #49
    Senior Member Array mrreynolds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    620
    Quote Originally Posted by Crowbait View Post
    Eagle,
    check out the video Mr. Reynolds posted, it confirms many of your statements as well as confirming that Mr. Reynolds didn't necessarily mean what you may have thought he meant. I agree with you 100% though, it seriously rubs me the wrong way when people make ALL of our "fathers" look like a bunch of bigoted slave owners. Some most certainly were but most I would say weren't.

    -Russell
    I never named any names we all know some were and some were not. I merely refereed to those who were.

  5. #50
    Moderator
    Array Rock and Glock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Colorado at 11,650'
    Posts
    12,751

    Post Unfortunate Editing Explained

    I find it frightful someone that ignorant (Hartmann) can even find a venue to accept this poorly researched tripe. Anyone who has studied that period in America and the Federalist papers would understand the disservice of this attempted revisionist analysis. Thom Hartmann has done all Americans a huge disservice and is trying to cast this discussion as a matter of race to further polarize the populace. That it is in Truthout speaks volumes too, published alongside Krugman, the original tax and spend liberal.

    Having said that, as I originally read the thread, I thought I understood the OP was quoting the cited articles title/conclusion in his thread title "The Second Amendment was Ratified to Preserve Slavery" and due to the manner of his quoting the article in the body of the OP, I also thought he was opining to the contrary. As other posts suggest, there was obviously some confusion regarding that matter.

    Acting on the above, without asking permission of the OP, I added a parenthetical word "Not" to the thread title so it then read as follows "The Second Amendment was (Not) Ratified to Preserve Slavery". I made this edit so that Bots and Crawlers on the internut would NOT pick up the title of the thread and further disseminate it absent detailed discussion. I did so because I did not want the title bandied about as some search link never to be followed up upon. The OP objected. After some short back and forth, the OP stated "I feel it's wrong to manipulate the title to fit your opinion rather we both love or hate the article let it stand on it's own merits or lack of."

    So, my apologies to the OP for "manipulating the title". I thought I was adding parenthetical clarification that would be appreciated as more accurately reflecting his position. I was wrong. So, it stands as written.

    Here is my opinion: Thom Hartmann will further see his revisionist arguments further disseminated, in great disservice to our country. What he has written has no basis in fact, and is not supported by any scholar of any repute. Hartmann singles out one small discourse in one state's Ratifying Convention and builds an entire case on it? Balderdash! Add to that the fact that nine states had ALREADY ratified the Constitution, Virginia's votes didn't even matter!

    If Hartmann had some additional sources that looked to others than Mason and Henry, perhaps those much closer to the writing of and debates regarding the Constitution, I might be a wee bit more charitable, but I am underwhelmed. Seriously, one state? One state that did not matter because nine states had already ratified said Constitution? (See below) We can certainly argue about that for weeks, but the depth of his research is pathetic.

    Here's a wee part of his Biography, and all I need to read: "Hartmann is a lay scholar of the history and textual analysis of the United States Constitution" but don't forget he is also a modern historian, an expert on ADHD, and other topics of our day such as electronic vote rigging and climate change. A real panalopy of progressive hand-wringing crap. And least I forget, he has three degrees in herbology and homeopathic medicine (universities not named thankfully) and was even a member of the SDS. He probably hyperventilates on voter ID too.........

    Spare me. Trash, front to back. He needs to read more and think more and spout off less.

    First nine states:

    1 December 7, 1787 Delaware
    2 December 12, 1787 Pennsylvania
    3 December 18, 1787 New Jersey
    4 January 2, 1788 Georgia
    5 January 9, 1788 Connecticut
    6 February 6, 1788 Massachusetts
    7 April 28, 1788 Maryland
    8 May 23, 1788 South Carolina
    9 June 21, 1788 New Hampshire


    Sorry for the attitude, folks. The whole thread, in fact, that the topic of the 2A is even up for discussion now, just wears me down.

    Rant over.

    I will watch the Video tomorrow because it appears to be quite interesting. I'm sure it will be enlightening.
    Crowbait, phreddy and TX expat like this.

  6. #51
    Senior Member Array Cold Shot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    908
    Quote Originally Posted by BigJon10125 View Post
    One must look at the entire body of work to determine the actual reason for the 2a. Slavery is not it. This is like saying the civil war was fought over slavery. It wasn't, see states rights.
    Yeah, not buying that for a second.

  7. #52
    Senior Member Array mrreynolds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    620
    Quote Originally Posted by Rock and Glock View Post
    I find it frightful someone that ignorant (Hartmann) can even find a venue to accept this poorly researched tripe. Anyone who has studied that period in America and the Federalist papers would understand the disservice of this attempted revisionist analysis. Thom Hartmann has done all Americans a huge disservice and is trying to cast this discussion as a matter of race to further polarize the populace. That it is in Truthout speaks volumes too, published alongside Krugman, the original tax and spend liberal.

    Having said that, as I originally read the thread, I thought I understood the OP was quoting the cited articles title/conclusion in his thread title "The Second Amendment was Ratified to Preserve Slavery" and due to the manner of his quoting the article in the body of the OP, I also thought he was opining to the contrary. As other posts suggest, there was obviously some confusion regarding that matter.

    Acting on the above, without asking permission of the OP, I added a parenthetical word "Not" to the thread title so it then read as follows "The Second Amendment was (Not) Ratified to Preserve Slavery". I made this edit so that Bots and Crawlers on the internut would NOT pick up the title of the thread and further disseminate it absent detailed discussion. I did so because I did not want the title bandied about as some search link never to be followed up upon. The OP objected. After some short back and forth, the OP stated "I feel it's wrong to manipulate the title to fit your opinion rather we both love or hate the article let it stand on it's own merits or lack of."

    So, my apologies to the OP for "manipulating the title". I thought I was adding parenthetical clarification that would be appreciated as more accurately reflecting his position. I was wrong. So, it stands as written.

    Here is my opinion: Thom Hartmann will further see his revisionist arguments further disseminated, in great disservice to our country. What he has written has no basis in fact, and is not supported by any scholar of any repute. Hartmann singles out one small discourse in one state's Ratifying Convention and builds an entire case on it? Balderdash! Add to that the fact that nine states had ALREADY ratified the Constitution, Virginia's votes didn't even matter!

    If Hartmann had some additional sources that looked to others than Mason and Henry, perhaps those much closer to the writing of and debates regarding the Constitution, I might be a wee bit more charitable, but I am underwhelmed. Seriously, one state? One state that did not matter because nine states had already ratified said Constitution? (See below) We can certainly argue about that for weeks, but the depth of his research is pathetic.

    Here's a wee part of his Biography, and all I need to read: "Hartmann is a lay scholar of the history and textual analysis of the United States Constitution" but don't forget he is also a modern historian, an expert on ADHD, and other topics of our day such as electronic vote rigging and climate change. A real panalopy of progressive hand-wringing crap. And least I forget, he has three degrees in herbology and homeopathic medicine (universities not named thankfully) and was even a member of the SDS. He probably hyperventilates on voter ID too.........

    Spare me. Trash, front to back. He needs to read more and think more and spout off less.

    First nine states:

    1 December 7, 1787 Delaware
    2 December 12, 1787 Pennsylvania
    3 December 18, 1787 New Jersey
    4 January 2, 1788 Georgia
    5 January 9, 1788 Connecticut
    6 February 6, 1788 Massachusetts
    7 April 28, 1788 Maryland
    8 May 23, 1788 South Carolina
    9 June 21, 1788 New Hampshire


    Sorry for the attitude, folks. The whole thread, in fact, that the topic of the 2A is even up for discussion now, just wears me down.

    Rant over.

    I will watch the Video tomorrow because it appears to be quite interesting. I'm sure it will be enlightening.
    I believe that we're all supporters of firearm ownership. This is a history lesson and just a friendly exchange of information. If it's incorrect break it down and enlighten the masses. Much appreciated.

  8. #53
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    27,396
    Quote Originally Posted by BigJon10125 View Post
    One must look at the entire body of work to determine the actual reason for the 2a. Slavery is not it. This is like saying the civil war was fought over slavery. It wasn't, see states rights.
    For a good review of the entire body of work, I recommend: The Founders' View of the Right to Bear Arms, by David Young.


    From the summary @ SecondAmendmentInfo.com:

    The Founders' View of the Right to Bear Arms - A Definitive History of the Second Amendment is available from The Second Amendment Foundation, Amazon.com, and the publisher, Golden Oak Books. The Founders' View examines every detail of the Second Amendment's development and adoption. The various terms and phrases used within the Second Amendment are traced directly to their American roots and examined in their original American Bill of Rights context. Mr. Young's new book provides the documented information that conclusively settles every disputed point regarding the Second Amendment's history and intent.

    Mr. Young's latest book is indexed and contains a copy of Thomas Jefferson's authenticated Official Imprint of the amendments proposed by Congress as ratified by the states. This informative and fact filled volume is 288 pages printed on acid free paper with a sewn, hardcover binding. The Origin of the Second Amendment is the main documentary source for citations in The Founders' View. For further information, contact David E. Young at the e-mail address below or call Golden Oak Books.
    U.S. Supreme Court Heller Case Information

    Although it was published more than a month after acceptance of the case, The Founders' View of the Right to Bear Arms was still cited a total of seventeen times to the U.S. Supreme Court in four of the briefs filed in support of Mr. Heller and the individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment in the District of Columbia vs Heller case. Alan Gura's respondent's brief and the amicus briefs from Gun Owners of America, Pennsylvania's Senate President Pro-Tem, and Academics for the Second Amendment cited The Founders' View in support of Mr. Heller's individual rights. All of the briefs and pleadings in the Heller case are available at this webpage.

    Mr. Young's severe criticism of the historical arguments presented by fifteen professional academic historians as amici in support of Washington D.C.'s handgun ban was published by the History News Network on February 18, 2008. The title is "Why DC's Gun Law is Unconstitutional". Those interested in better understanding why the dispute over the intent of the Second Amendment has continued unabated for decades should read this article that clearly demonstrates the error filled and biased understanding of those relied upon by gun control advocates regarding historical matters.



    From the summary @ Amazon.com:

    A concise history of the Second Amendment that traces every term and phrase of this much disputed provision to their AMERICAN roots and earliest authors. All details of the Second Amendment's terms and development are explained and thoroughly documented in this brand new book.

    The author, David E. Young, relies on his own published document collection, The Origin of the Second Amendment (extensively cited in recent U.S. Courts of Appeals decisions), as the source for documentation in The Founders' View. For decades there has been a pressing need for a simple and straightforward explanation of the Second Amendment that is consistent with ALL of the historical evidence available.

    The Founders' View of the Right to Bear Arms provides a crystal clear understanding of the Second Amendment sought by so many for so long. The Founders' View presents exactly that - the understanding of those who developed and implemented the U.S. Bill of Rights and its Second Amendment provision. This new volume examines only the most relevant information regarding the statements, actions, and persons directly responsible for the formation of the Bill of Rights and its second provision.

    The Founders' View presents a number of facts about the Second Amendment not previously described or understood. The fundamental and expansive nature of the individual rights protected by the Second Amendment are clearly presented and documented.

    For those interested in the complete and documented historical facts that conclusively settle the Second Amendment intent controversy, the Founders' View of the Right to Bear Arms provides a most informative and easy read.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  9. #54
    Member
    Array dling's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    436
    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.
    x2 on that.

  10. #55
    Member Array Crowbait's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Western Missouri
    Posts
    402
    Quote Originally Posted by mrreynolds View Post
    I never named any names we all know some were and some were not. I merely refereed to those who were.
    Please don't take my post as an accusation; it most certainly was not. I was merely stating that as a generalization not necessarily a direct response to anything you had said or posted. I apologize if it came across that way.
    A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government. --George Washington

  11. #56
    Senior Member Array mrreynolds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    620
    Quote Originally Posted by Crowbait View Post
    Please don't take my post as an accusation; it most certainly was not. I was merely stating that as a generalization not necessarily a direct response to anything you had said or posted. I apologize if it came across that way.
    No apology required but I appreciate your insight as well.

  12. #57
    Senior Member Array bklynboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    587
    I just read Hartmann's article and it absolutely fails to convince me that the founders, as a group, drafted the 2A to protect slavery. I did not track down Hartmann's original sources, but I will assume for the moment he accurately quoted Patrick Henry. I note that not a single other founder - including other slave owners - explicitly cited protection from slaves as their rationale for the 2A.

    Of course, all of the Anti-Slavery founders also supported the ratification of the 2A. Does anyone believe for a minute that they did so to ensure that slave owners would be armed against slave insurrection? Sadly, that was one of the results, since slave owners like all other citizens were armed, but that does not make it the causal factor for anyone except for perhaps Henry. Even John Adams, the most Anti-Slavery founding father, (who incidentally came close to a modern gun controller's view of what is meant by a 'well regulated' militia), also staunchly supported the 2A for "private self defense" to be used at "individual discretion". Does anyone seriously think John Adams voted for the 2A to keep down the slaves?
    Crowbait and Rock and Glock like this.

  13. #58
    New Member Array DocuMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    U.P. of Michigan
    Posts
    1

    What the Period Sources Show

    Quote Originally Posted by ccw9mm View Post
    For a good review of the entire body of work, I recommend: The Founders' View of the Right to Bear Arms, by David Young.


    From the summary @ SecondAmendmentInfo.com:

    The Founders' View of the Right to Bear Arms - A Definitive History of the Second Amendment is available from The Second Amendment Foundation, Amazon.com, and the publisher, Golden Oak Books. The Founders' View examines every detail of the Second Amendment's development and adoption. The various terms and phrases used within the Second Amendment are traced directly to their American roots and examined in their original American Bill of Rights context. Mr. Young's new book provides the documented information that conclusively settles every disputed point regarding the Second Amendment's history and intent.

    Mr. Young's latest book is indexed and contains a copy of Thomas Jefferson's authenticated Official Imprint of the amendments proposed by Congress as ratified by the states. This informative and fact filled volume is 288 pages printed on acid free paper with a sewn, hardcover binding. The Origin of the Second Amendment is the main documentary source for citations in The Founders' View. For further information, contact David E. Young at the e-mail address below or call Golden Oak Books.
    U.S. Supreme Court Heller Case Information

    Although it was published more than a month after acceptance of the case, The Founders' View of the Right to Bear Arms was still cited a total of seventeen times to the U.S. Supreme Court in four of the briefs filed in support of Mr. Heller and the individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment in the District of Columbia vs Heller case. Alan Gura's respondent's brief and the amicus briefs from Gun Owners of America, Pennsylvania's Senate President Pro-Tem, and Academics for the Second Amendment cited The Founders' View in support of Mr. Heller's individual rights. All of the briefs and pleadings in the Heller case are available at this webpage.

    Mr. Young's severe criticism of the historical arguments presented by fifteen professional academic historians as amici in support of Washington D.C.'s handgun ban was published by the History News Network on February 18, 2008. The title is "Why DC's Gun Law is Unconstitutional". Those interested in better understanding why the dispute over the intent of the Second Amendment has continued unabated for decades should read this article that clearly demonstrates the error filled and biased understanding of those relied upon by gun control advocates regarding historical matters.



    From the summary @ Amazon.com:

    A concise history of the Second Amendment that traces every term and phrase of this much disputed provision to their AMERICAN roots and earliest authors. All details of the Second Amendment's terms and development are explained and thoroughly documented in this brand new book.

    The author, David E. Young, relies on his own published document collection, The Origin of the Second Amendment (extensively cited in recent U.S. Courts of Appeals decisions), as the source for documentation in The Founders' View. For decades there has been a pressing need for a simple and straightforward explanation of the Second Amendment that is consistent with ALL of the historical evidence available.

    The Founders' View of the Right to Bear Arms provides a crystal clear understanding of the Second Amendment sought by so many for so long. The Founders' View presents exactly that - the understanding of those who developed and implemented the U.S. Bill of Rights and its Second Amendment provision. This new volume examines only the most relevant information regarding the statements, actions, and persons directly responsible for the formation of the Bill of Rights and its second provision.

    The Founders' View presents a number of facts about the Second Amendment not previously described or understood. The fundamental and expansive nature of the individual rights protected by the Second Amendment are clearly presented and documented.

    For those interested in the complete and documented historical facts that conclusively settle the Second Amendment intent controversy, the Founders' View of the Right to Bear Arms provides a most informative and easy read.

    I am the author of the above book and am very familiar with Founding Era sources. While not familiar with the specific article under discussion, the subject has been around for awhile. The earliest presentation was Professor Carl Bogus' article entitled "The Hidden History of the Second Amendment" in which he argued the same point - that the Second Amendment was intended to preserve slavery.

    There are numerous period sources that directly contradict such a claim. If it were true, then the southern states must have been the only ones that sought Second Amendment protection, but there were only two of those. The fact is that attempts were made in seven state ratifying conventions to protect the right to keep arms, indicating it's purpose was protection against misconstruction and abuse of the Constitution's powers by the Federal government, as Congress indicated when the Amendment was proposed. The states and the order in which Second Amendment related proposals were made were:

    Pennsylvania - not a slave state (defeated along with entire bill of rights based on state BR)
    Massachusetts - not a slave state (defeated along with 1st and 4th amendment rights)
    New Hampshire - not a slave state
    Virginia - slave state (adopted entire BR based directly on existing state bills of rights)
    New York - not a slave state (included entire Declaration of Rights in ratification document)
    North Carolina - slave state (refused to ratify Constitution - adopted Virginia's proposed BR)
    Rhode Island - not a slave state (included entire Declaration of Rights in ratification document)

    Total - Seven states, five non-slave, two slave states. Five is a lot more than two. The northern states were not seeking protection for slavery in the southern states. The entire idea is preposterous and directly contradicted by a simple understanding of American history. I suggest to everyone that it will be a general ignorance of our own history that is the downfall of our republic.

    Bogus, a control advocate law professors, edited the Chicago-Kent Law Review Symposium on the Second Amendment, which was funded by the Joyce Foundation specifically to influence Federal courts at the time of the U.S. v Emerson case. Barack Obama was, at that time, a member of the Joyce Foundation Board of Directors. The entire purpose of the Symposium was to recruit control advocate professional historians, such as Jack Rakove and others, into the Second Amendment dispute in the law review field to counteract the pro-rights scholarship that had been used by the Emerson District Court to overturn a Federal law. In other words, it was all to influence Federal court decisions. This did not work, because the period sources directly contradict control advocates. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the District Court decision and backed up its decision with much more period information. It cited a document collection that I edited, The Origin of the Second Amendment, for 107 period sources backing up the individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment.

    It was Jack Rakove who wrote the professional historians' brief in the Heller case supporting DC's gun control laws. Be aware that the 15 PhD holding academics presented an entirely off-base argument filled with errors of fact to the Supreme Court. I have carefully examined their brief at On Second Opinion Blog. The first part of my series, Root Causes of Never-Ending Second Amendment Dispute, documents just the first of the erroneous claims made by the historians. Since their brief presents the controllers best historical evidence, it is apparent that all gun control advocates' historical arguments about the Second Amendment's intent are wrong. Understanding those errors of historical fact enable pro-rights supporters to counteract everything false claim about Second Amendment intent by those who try to destroy it's protections.
    OPFOR, TX expat and bklynboy like this.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234

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.