Calling CalGuns History buffs!

[Adeodatus]

Awesome! Thank you!

[Cpt]

Pretty extensive read thanks.

[three dogs]

Assuming that the "slave patrol" stuff is true, ummm, well it wouldn't be very bright to let your slaves have guns now would it?

^^^this.

Just out of curiosity, I looked up the actual definition of slave

.1slave noun \ˈslāv\

Definition of SLAVE

1
: a person held in servitude as the chattel of another
2
: one that is completely subservient to a dominating influence

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/slave

[Tarn_Helm]

Nice fat juicy target.

Saw this on FB. Wanted to scream BS. Oh man, and the last paragraph almost made me puke!

What are your thoughts?

http://truth-out.org/news/item/13890...6cnP8.facebook

Twaddle and half-truths.

But it is useful.

Second Amendment supporters will dig up the big picture and prove him wrong.

That is what happened to a professor, Michael Bellesiles, who wrote a faked history of arms-bearing in the U.S.A.

He had won the Bancroft Prize for his crudely propagandistic, anti-Second Amendment, pseudo-history.

But Clayton Cramer called him out.

Bellesiles had to give back the prize and the prize money.

And Bellesiles lost his professorship.

Check it out here:

[CDFingers]

I agree that it is a bit simplistic to claim slavery was THE reason the Second was ratified.

Such a notion is overly simplistic.

A good book on the topic is The Summer of 1787 about the writing of the Constitution; then you have to plumb the challenges of getting it ratified. Getting it ratified required a promise of a Bill of Rights, of which the Second is one of the items. But there are ten amendments there, all needed to get the Constitution ratified.

Sure, slavery played a huge part in how the Constitution was written, 3/5 compromises and what not, but we have to know that the Constitution was not ratified unanimously. We also have to remember that neither Vermont nor Maine were members of the original 13 colonies and did not ratify the Constitution. Note both were non slave states.

When looking at history, it is always a poor idea to over simplify things.

CDFingers

[mt4design]

I didn't read the article. Sorry, but knowing progressives they are dependent upon a lack of knowledge by their target audience in order to sell their propaganda. They literally own the education system in this country and benefit from twisting and limiting what can be taught in public schools.

There is a problem with perception here, with people thinking that ALL blacks were slaves in bondage in early America. That isn't the case at all.

I would point out that there were free black patriots who fought with whites (and black slaves who were promised there freedom) against the British during the American Revolution. And, there were black loyalists who fought against the patriots, joining the king who promised them freedom.

But, the notion that the reason the Second Amendment exists is to control the slavery of blacks is absurd.

The Revolutionary War had NOTHING to do with the slavery of blacks and EVERYTHING to do with making us all slaves to the crown.

Here is some fascinating history about blacks who played important roles in the American Revolution...

http://www.fold3.com/page/747_african_american_patriots_of_the/

ETA: Went back and read it. Wow... that is some serious propaganda parading as "truth". Seriously?

[fonso]

Straight from the Progressive playbook - agree with me or you're a racist and support slavery.

I see that the author of the piece is Thom Hartmann, who is a complete leftist progressive and hosts a nightly (???) program, "The Big Picture," on RT (I believe it's "Russia Today").

For info, see: http://rt.com/programs/big-picture/

I've attempted to watch his program but his views disgust me so much that I CAN'T TAKE IT!!!

[spamsucker]

Trying to disentangle any of the first 10 from the rest of the first 10 is silly and shows a flawed clockwork sort of thinking about a topic that at the time was organic and incapable of being thoroughly disentangled.

No issue of discussion in the BOR is limited in importance to any one of the colonies. They all had myriad problems and cultural, social, geographic, environmental and economic differences were just a few of them that were so varied that making a complex set of rights which were very carefully spelled out would have been blocked simply because the language would have been too explicit for every one of the pedantic adjudicating officials to give it a thumbs up. The first 10 ended up what they were because (IMHO) they formed a framework that was limited in specificity and therefore extensible enough that the state to state differences were not a blocker while granting broad protections to the populace.

The 2nd was there to protect the other 9, to protect an unborn nations future from itself and to ensure the ability of people to protect their property and themselves from each other. If protecting your property means gathering up runaway slaves in Georgia while in Ohio protecting your property might be running off herds of aggressive herbivores from your winter wheat. The problems experienced among the different colonies were always very different in description but the solution was always the same: Broad based freedom to protect yourself, your property and your country in full acknowledgement of the risk of living in a country where everyone else has the same right, ability and will.

[kaligaran]

I typed this up and realized it wasn't directly on topic but diverged slightly.
So I initially deleted it but then decided it was related so figured I'd post my $.02...

The Militia Act of 1972 said:
"free able-bodied white male citizen"

The Militia Act of 1862 included language to allow African Americans to to participate as soldiers although the details are debated.

If we had a Militia Act of 2013, I would expect and hope it to include all willing able-bodied American Citizens and not have demographic restrictions aside from a minimum age.

Keep in mind that in the 1700s African Americans and even women were often property. This is not always the case, but it was more than I would like to admit. These demographics didn't enjoy full equal protection under the Constitution. In fact, women didn't gain equal protection till well after that of other races.

As we have matured as a society we now correctly recognize that all humans are truly equal and that rights of our Consitution apply to all Americans and not just specific demographics.

I have heard the argument before that women were not to be part of the militia therefore 2A didn't apply for women. As a woman, this was one of the most infuriating arguments that I have ever heard. I saw red and was literally stunned by it at first. It's clear that you can't pick and choose which Amendments applies to whom. It's a blanket that applies equally.
Just as you can't say well, 4A doesn't apply to married women b/c at the time of the BoR creation, married women didn't own property (until the act of 1870).

[hoffmang]

Even if he was correct (and Mr. Bogus is just that) the 14A which is what actually matters to the modern right to keep and bear arms was adopted specifically to make sure the freedmen were armed.

-Gene

[curtisfong]

Cruickshank. Done.

[CDFingers]

mt4design's post made me giggle. What made me giggle was this:

>I didn't read the article. Sorry, but knowing progressives they are dependent upon a lack of knowledge

Now, THAT's funny.

CDFingers