4 ms·
so I'll just throw the Bullshit flag right there... It is true that upon adoption, the 2nd did not apply to slaves. It only applied to 'citizens' and as slaves
by Sketch22 10y ago
so I'll just throw the Bullshit flag right there...
It is true that upon adoption, the 2nd did not apply to slaves. It only applied to 'citizens' and as slaves were not considered citizens, it did not apply to them.
however: aside from your slanted attempt to start a racial issue re: the second, there are other, more pressing backing and reasons.
A. The Federalist Papers, No. 28: Alexander Hamilton expressed that when a government betrays the people by amassing too much power and becoming tyrannical, the people have no choice but to exercise their original right of self-defense — to fight the government.[Halbrook, p. 67]
B. The Federalist Papers, No. 29: Alexander Hamilton explained that an armed citizenry was the best and only real defense against a standing army becoming large and oppressive. [Halbrook, p. 67]
C. The Federalist Papers, No. 46: James Madison contended that ultimate authority resides in the people, and that if the federal government got too powerful and overstepped its authority, then the people would develop plans of resistance and resort to arms. [Halbrook, p. 67]
E. The Federalists promised that state governments and citizen militias would exist to make sure the federal military never became large or oppressive. To say that the National Guard replaces the notion of the militia runs contrary to what the Founders said and wrote.
F.John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government (1690) aimed at reforming Britain’s monarchy and parliamentary system and limiting the power of government, and profoundly influenced the Founders and all Western Civilization. John Locke explained that civil government properly exists to more effectively protect the rights that all individuals have in the “state of nature.” The individuals have the rights to life, liberty, and property. They give civil government the power over themselves only to the extent that it better protects those rights. Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence, specifically declared that the ideas of John Locke’s Second Treatise were “generally approved by the citizens of the United States.”Jefferson mandated that Locke’s Second Treatise be taught in the University of Virginia.
Also, feel free to look at other sites that may not align to your political echo-chamber. You may find it gives you a more complete point of view.
http://rare.us/story/when-black-americans-used-the-second-amendment-to-fight-the-ku-klux-klan/ http://rare.us/story/when-black-americans-used-the-second-am...
http://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/amendments/amendment-ii http://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/amend...
- krusty76 10y agoPeople always bring up defense against the evil gov't. I'd be interested to see how effective some guns are going to be against tanks, nukes, drones, etc. Just seems like more alarmist bullshit to justify owning guns. However, I'm not against gun ownership — I'm only against lack of regulations so any crazy nut can buy a gun at their whim and go massacre people.
- Sketch22 10y agoHave you ever looked up the FP-45 Liberator? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FP-45_Liberator https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FP-45_Liberator Small arms are used to take out troops and gain THEIR arms, therefore gaining larger and more powerful weapons. Thats a basic military tactic when facing a larger, better armed force. What 'regulation' would you suggest that 1.) does not deprive people of their right to own a gun and 2.) can be applied to everyone evenly? and at what point does ANYONE have to deny the right of self-defense? there is none, because there will ALWAYS be some group of people who would be adversely affected & denied the right by no fault of their own.
- ende 10y agoNational militaries are effectivr against other national militaries. Against heavily armed insurrectionist civilian populations, not so much.