3 ms·
> The interpretation of the 2A as a “collective” right associated with membership in the national guard/militia is largely a creation of 20th century lawyers.
by jmyeet 5y ago
> The interpretation of the 2A as a “collective” right associated with membership in the national guard/militia is largely a creation of 20th century lawyers.
This is Daughters of the Confederacy "states rights" levels of historical revisionism. The origins of the Second Amendment were rooted in quelling a potential slave uprising [1]:
> The Virginians were slave-owners. Jefferson had inherited 175 slaves and had purchased a few more. Henry ultimately had 76 slaves. Madison had dozens of slaves. Militia was necessary because from them, “slave patrols” were formed to keep order. Virginians also wanted to avoid what had happened during the Revolutionary War: slaves were invited to join the Continental Army and thereupon became free. Henry even feared that abolitionists would find a way to use the Constitution to manumit all slaves. “In this state,” Henry emphasized, “there are two hundred and thirty-six thousand blacks, and there are many in other states.” It, therefore, was of paramount importance that State rights to maintain militias unregulated by the federal government be included as an amendment, if Virginia were to ratify the Constitution.
> So the Second Amendment was born. Not to protect individual rights from encroachment, but to guarantee states the right to keep armed militia free from federal interference, in order to maintain control over black slaves. Not the noble motivation one might have hoped for. But the truth about the need for a state Militia and the intent of the Second Amendment.
[1]: https://rantt.com/2nd-amendment-and-slavery https://rantt.com/2nd-amendment-and-slavery
- javagram 5y ago> This is Daughters of the Confederacy "states rights" levels of historical revisionism. Absolutely wrong. Explain how this text, an obvious legal precursor to the 1st and 2nd amendments, has anything to do with slavery? https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689 https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689 “That it is the right of the subjects to petition the king, and all commitments and prosecutions for such petitioning are illegal; That the raising or keeping a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with consent of Parliament, is against law; That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;” > So the Second Amendment was born. Not to protect individual rights from encroachment, but to guarantee states the right to keep armed militia free from federal interference, in order to maintain control over black slaves. This is completely unable to explain why Free states in the north had a similar provision in their state constitutions recognizing the right to keep and bear arms. For example, was no need for slave patrols in Massachusetts, whose 1780 constitution contained this clause “The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.”