rawstory.com
Is there any credence to support this? The article basically says that Patrick Henry and George Mason were worried about slave uprisings and the federal government abolitioning slavery by force, so James Madison makes the 2nd Amendment and at Henry's behest changes the wording of "nation" to "state."
If this is true, then it seriously reconsiders my view of the 2nd Amendment and it's context.
Other urls found in this thread:
memory.loc.gov
truth-out.org
avalon.law.yale.edu
avalon.law.yale.edu
miamiherald.com
youtube.com
twitter.com
USA didn't really have much of an army and had to rely on militias. And how the fuck are you supposed to settle wilderness without guns?
>rawstory
no, its stupid gun grabbing nonsense propaganda. Furthermore, its just typical petit bourgeoisie tricks to try to deprive the working class of their arms.
But the article presents actual evidence, citing opinions and writings of George Mason, James Madison, and Patrick Henry?
Patrick Henry flat-out says he wants to protect slavery.
what a crock of shit
here's a mason quote:
>when the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually...
Then what reason is there to have militias now? There's not any more wilderness.
Source?
No, the first gun control measures were passed to prevent slave uprisings, if the 2nd Amendment was designed to protect slavery then it would literally be the opposite of what it is.
Slaves weren't considered people, though; they were property. Ergo, doling out the freedom to possess firearms for everybody is inapplicable to them.
lol they shill this meme history every time they try to take away guns. They did this EXACT same shit a few years ago too
>Slaves weren't considered people, though; they were property.
They were still objectively people who could infact use guns you ass.
This is the first time I've heard about it. If it's such a good case, why isn't it used more?
memory.loc.gov
page 380 from elliot's debates for saturday july 14 1788
You forget about indentured servants and the landless poor.
Which would mean that the 2nd Amendment would have no bearing on slavery, since they were property they were already capable of being disarmed legally, which means that people didn't have to worry about slave uprisings and thus the 2nd Amendment must have had some other purpose. Probably one related to the war we just fucking fought.
Yeah, and the fear of them using those guns is what drove the wide-availability of weaponry under the 2nd Amendment. In order to ensure a militia could stop or prevent any rebellion. The 2nd Amendment never referred to slaves, it was meant to stop them.
What about them? They have a constitutional right to have firearms, but they're not slaves.
You have some really flawed logic.
Everyone can have guns ergo slaveowners can have guns ergo slaves aren't people ergo they can't have guns ergo the slaveowners control the slaves.
For every random quote or far fetched piece of evidence anti-gunners find to say that the 2nd Amendment was meant to keep blacks enslaved, there's 20 times as much evidence supporting the fact that the 2nd Amendment was meant to protect against tyrannical government.
The states and federal government would already have a military though, thus rendering the whole 2nd Amendment moot if they wanted to keep blacks enslaved. Besides, why the hell would there be a 2nd Amendment when a good portion of the northern states didn't even have slavery?
wtf i hate the bill of rights now. Did you guys know freedom of speech is primarily used by Nazis to be racist and freedom of religion is to allow evangelicals to install and uphold christian fascism? Totally changes how much freedom I'm willing to allow people who disagree with me now that I'm so well educated on the subject.
The federal military is not compelled nor able to support slavery.
>Did you guys know freedom of speech is primarily used by Nazis to be racist and freedom of religion is to allow evangelicals to install and uphold christian fascism? Totally changes how much freedom I'm willing to allow people who disagree with me now that I'm so well educated on the subject.
not sure how hard you're memeing right now but that is quite literally the argument of the American left
The state militaries certainly could, and given the large portion of states that didn't have slavery it'd make no sense to force all of them to not infringe on the right to bear arms instead of just letting it be a state issue.
That's a whole lot of stupid bullshit, I'm not even going to read that.
This is an obvious lie by omission for the sake of shilling gungrabber politics. This is in the same camp as Beard/Irving bullshit.
The Pennsylvania Constitution from 1776 says
>That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
avalon.law.yale.edu
Nothing at all to do with slavery.
The point was that everyone has the right to tell the government to fuck off and die
Where are you getting these cute gun girls?
i fail to see how the pennsylvanian constitution is relevant
The argument is that the right to own guns has it origins in a safty measure against slave rebellions and nothing else. This shows that even non slave states had the right to own guns, proving this meme idea wrong. Also, heres a quote from every normies favorite musical man Hamilton
>if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.''-The Federalist Papers 29
avalon.law.yale.edu
Again, nothing at all to do with slavery.
/k/ drawfag known as "Guard". His stuff is notoriously hard to find though.
The author is citing people from the fucking ratifying ratifying convention in virginia in 1788, not the actual constitutional convention. Furthermore, Henry, the guy who explicitly states that they need the guns to oppress slaves, wasn't even at the constitutional convention of 1787. The only person who explicitly states that the reason they should ratify (keep this in mind, not ADD, but RATIFY) the second ammendment is Henry, who wasn't even at the fucking constitutional convention. Mason's words do not say anything about slavery unless you twist his words. The idea that Madison was the one who got the 2nd ammendment into the constitution in the first place is just wrong, as well.
Even IF the virginians just wanted the second ammendment for the purposes of slavery, the idea that it was ratified SOLELY to keep the slaves down is ridiculous, as points out, the idea that people should be allowed to arm themselves existed before this point, even in non-slave owning states. The 2nd ammendment is just an extension of english common law, magnified by the need for a strong militia that arose during the revolutionary war.
The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Sir William Blackstone described this right as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense and resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.[8]
Please, Mr. liberal blogger, take away my rights! I wouldn't want to be supporting the evils of SLAVERY!
this is some astonishingly bad historiography
Also, find me a case where a slave catching militia managed to prevent itself from being disarmed by invoking the second ammendment, I'll wait.
in case a foreign power attacks or you need to quickly call up an army to defend against rebels.
What the fuck do you think militias are for?
the sole purpose is to attack the 2nd amendment by calling it racist
>by calling it racist
miamiherald.com
>For two decades, George Washington attended Christ Church in Alexandria, Virginia.
>Now, the episcopalian place of worship is saying it will take down plaques in honor of Washington and Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee, who also attended the church, because they make some “feel unsafe or unwelcome.”
>“We understand that both Washington and Lee lived in times much different than our own, and that each man, in addition to his public persona, was a complicated human being, and like all of us, a child of God,” the church wrote. “Today, the legacy of slavery and of the Confederacy is understood differently than it was in 1870. For some, Lee symbolizes the attempt to overthrow the Union and to preserve slavery.”
article says it's an episcopalian church
which i think mean it's an anglican offshoot
The Bill of Rights wasn't devised at the Constitutional Convention, genius. All the discussion about the 2nd Amendment happened after the convention because the promise of a series of amendments guaranteeing individual and state rights was the only thing that sold the nation on the new Constitution and was the main concern of everybody.
Regardless, the idea that the 2nd ammendment was created specifically to allow slave militias to put down nog uprisings is preposterous when you consider that it has its roots in english common law, and was generally accepted by the non-slave-owning states
When did Americans go full retard and convince themselves the entire world revolves around niggers ?
>English law has anything to do with American History
Lol faggot
>English Law wouldn't have an effect on English colonies.
>There's not any more wilderness.
Idiot
Second amendment was created in repose to English history. Founders had seen the effects of forced disarmament during the English religious wars and wanted to avert that.
Read the letters of the founders
Hamilton
> Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.
Madison
>Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms
Jefferson
>No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms
Imagine being this stupid
You realize we're under the common law?
this was an excellent troll
Heres something for all nonamericans/leftist who have no idea what the constitution is
Fuck wait, I'm retarded.
good lad
go read faget
...
>the guy who didn't even fucking attend the Constitutional Convention or play any part in the making of the Bill of Rights saying he wants to protect slavery with guns is proof the Second Amendment was made to protect slavery
fucking off yourself you revisionist communist piece of dogshit
No. As a right winger, this is a right wing framing to hit dumbass liberals right in the feels, because liberals are easily swayed with the wind by how they "feel," about an issue instead of using intellectual rigor.
Why wasn't slavery just written into the constitution? (as in the right to own slaves).
The alt-history implications are pretty huge (you'd probably have the north secede from the south)
>If this is true, then it seriously reconsiders my view of the 2nd Amendment and it's context.
If you actually believe this garbage, you were never in favor of the 2nd to begin with and have no education in the philosophy behind America's founding documents
>cites the writings of James Madison
Nowhere in Madison's correspondance or speeches is there any reference to the 2nd ammendment being there purely to defend against slave rebellions. The only guy who explicitly states that they need guns to keep the nogs down is Henry, who never attended the 1787 constitutional convention or even wanted to ratify the fucking constitution in the first place. All of the other speeches cited in the article can reasonably be construed to not be talking about slavery.
Furthermore, the idea that the 2nd has its roots in slavery at all is preposterous, when the idea of the right to bear arms was just an explicit continuation of english common law at the time.