100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: 2nd Amendment about keeping down slaves and Indians? | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Actor and progressive political activist Danny Glover informed a group of students at a Texas A&M University-sponsored event that the Second Amendment was created to put down slave rebellions and subjugate Native Americans. “I don’t know if you know the genesis of the right to bear arms,” Glover said on Thursday. “The Second Amendment comes from the right to protect themselves from slave revolts and from uprisings by Native Americans.” “A revolt from people who were stolen from their land or revolt from people whose land was stolen from, that’s what the genesis of the Second Amendment is,” he added. That theory that the Second Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights to put down slave rebellions was recently resurrected by bestselling author and radio host Thom Hartmann, who said Virginia wouldn’t ratify the Constitution without a guarantee that it would have some way to keep slaves in check. http://news.yahoo.com/lethal-weapon-actor-tells-students-second-amendment-intended-051717897.html What do you think?  Alhtough I dont believe its author had the intent, being he spoke out often about slavery, I do think that the amendment was probably appealing to those who wished to avoid rebellions of slaves (considering, the term 'freeman' was often used and during that time slaves were not part of the collective 'americans' spoken of in the constitution) the way republicans are appealing to racists and democrats are appealig to socialists I suspect that enslaved europeans were made gradually 'white' , as well, to prevent organizing and rebelling with the enslaved africans,,, Are you serious? The founding fathers among other came here to get away from taxation and they had to do it by force so when the constitution and bill of rights were written they knew first hand about government tyranny and therefore understood the need for the people to be able to defend themselves from an over zealous government hell bent on imposing rules that apply to the people, but the government. actually, founding fathers were american born, they didnt have to do anything by force,,,, and the pilgrims before them FLED to america, also doing nothing by 'force' and,,,,,,, most were BORN on this continent, not in Britain Most of the delegates were natives of the 13 colonies. Only eight were born elsewhere: four (Butler, Fitzsimons, McHenry, and Paterson) in Ireland, two (Davie and Robert Morris) in England, one (Wilson) in Scotland, and one (Hamilton) in the West Indies. http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_founding_fathers_overview.html The 13 Colonies were British Colonies,therefore the Foundig Fathers were British Subjects,until the de Facto Independence of those Colonies! thats lovely,, whatever they were called 'The founding fathers among other came here to get away from taxation and they had to do it by force ' is still not a true statement, since there was nowhere for them to 'come' to,, being already born here and therefore no force required of them either Yes there was force and it was called the revolutionary war between the 13 colonies and Great Brittan at first, then became a world war with Brittan on one side and a young United States, France, Spain and Netherlands on the other. So what "no force required" are you referring to? they required no FORCE to 'COME HERE' just a pretty straight forward correction of a previously posted sentence,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The second amendment was added December 15, 1791, well before the end of slavery. It had nothing at all to do with slavery, which ended in 1863.
The second amendment, was created in order to prevent tyranny by the government. It appears, that amendment has discarded, with no regard to the foundation the United States founding fathers set forth. Period<-- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The second amendment was added December 15, 1791, well before the end of slavery. It had nothing at all to do with slavery, which ended in 1863. The second amendment, was created in order to prevent tyranny by the government. It appears, that amendment has discarded, with no regard to the foundation the United States founding fathers set forth. Period<-- like i said, glover trying to use his status to promote obama's policies... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The second amendment was added December 15, 1791, well before the end of slavery. It had nothing at all to do with slavery, which ended in 1863. The second amendment, was created in order to prevent tyranny by the government. It appears, that amendment has discarded, with no regard to the foundation the United States founding fathers set forth. Period<-- IM not sure what the date of the amendment has to do with its appeal or inspiration,, it was during a period of slavery in america, amongst other things so its not unreasonable to believe that slaveholders would find the reassurance appealing as a way to make sure to keep slaves in line,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There was substantial opposition to the new Constitution, because it moved the power to arm the state militias from the states to the federal government. This created a fear that the federal government, by neglecting the upkeep of the militia, could have overwhelming military force at its disposal through its power to maintain a standing army and navy, leading to a confrontation with the states, encroaching on the states' reserved powers and even engaging in a military takeover.
A foundation of American political thought during the Revolutionary period was the well justified concern about political corruption and governmental tyranny. Even the federalists, fending off their opponents who accused them of creating an oppressive regime, were careful to acknowledge the risks of tyranny. Against that backdrop, the framers saw the personal right to bear arms as a potential check against tyranny. Theodore Sedgwick of Massachusetts expressed this sentiment by declaring that it is "a chimerical idea to suppose that a country like this could ever be enslaved . . . Is it possible . . . that an army could be raised for the purpose of enslaving themselves or their brethren? or, if raised whether they could subdue a nation of freemen, who know how to prize liberty and who have arms in their hands?"[81][82] Noah Webster similarly argued: Before a standing army can rule the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.[82][83] George Mason argued the importance of the militia and right to bear arms by reminding his compatriots of England's efforts "to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them . . . by totally disusing and neglecting the militia." He also clarified that under prevailing practice the militia included all people, rich and poor. "Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." Because all were members of the militia, all enjoyed the right to individually bear arms to serve therein.[82][84] The framers thought the personal right to bear arms to be a paramount right by which other rights could be protected. Therefore, writing after the ratification of the Constitution, but before the election of the first Congress, James Monroe included "the right to keep and bear arms" in a list of basic "human rights", which he proposed to be added to the Constitution.[82][85] Patrick Henry, in the Virginia ratification convention June 5, 1788, argued for the dual rights to arms and resistance to oppression: Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.[86] While both Monroe and Adams supported ratification of the Constitution, its most influential framer was James Madison. In Federalist No. 46, he confidently contrasted the federal government of the United States to the European kingdoms, which he contemptuously described as "afraid to trust the people with arms." He assured his fellow citizens that they need never fear their government because of "the advantage of being armed...."[82][87] =-=-=-=-= There was no discussion of slaves or slavery with respect to the 2nd Amendment at the time of its drafting but there are numerous discussions concerning the need to be able to forcibly protect citizens and states against potential federal tyranny. I think this pretty much discredits the viewpoint exhorted by Glover. Consideration of slaves and Indians had little or nothing to do with the creation 2nd amendment and it is intellectually dishonest to try to inject these considerations a couple of centuries after the fact as a matter of weapon baiting incitement. I am disappointed in Glover for this lapse in critical thinking. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2nd_amendment |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Slavery and oppression of "the black man" ended long ago....get over it, wasn't us! Today, since 1913, we're ALL slaves to the banks and the power of the fiat dollar which is crashing! Current power is in it's death throes and the statists are doing their best to keep the illusion alive as it rots to the core. Even the military didn't get paid on time this month! We're broke, and what we can't give, they will soon take! Martial law will come when the money fails! People WILL take to the streets! The results of that have been shown in FAR TOO MANY countries lately what happens when the people have only rocks and bottles while their govt's have guns and tanks! Don't think for a second it won't happen here! Think back to "Occupy"! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Second Amendment is truly for the defense of the nation, not just from tyranny or foriegn invasion, but from the heavy spending required to maintain a large standing army.
The United States was not supposed to be a nation that was constantly at war. We should have times of peace, when our army is mostly disbanded. The military academies were designed to have a strong officer core which could train volunteers and draftees during a time of conflict, and that system worked well for over 120 years. Maybe no one has noticed, but we haven't been winning wars since we decided to keep a professional army. What we have been able to do is pile up massive debt and bring about an image of a bully upon ourselves. There was a reason that the original cabinet had a Department of War and a Department of the Navy. A navy is important to keep trade upon the high seas open. It is hard to believe, but there are still pirates in this day and age, and our navy is what allows the bounty of trade that our nation so loves. The army however, is not needed as such. We do not need to project our policies or our idea of democracy on other nations. One cannot force democracy on a people, that is something they must take for themselves, and as we cannot force democracy at the point of a sword, keeping a standing army is pointless. This is why we have a Second Amendment. So that we have a buffer that allows the government to call up an army in case of times of war or invasion. By having an armed populace, we can reduce the need of a large army and by extension a large government. The Second Amendment was a well thought out strategy for the future of this nation. It guarantees our freedoms in more ways than just the obvious, and is neither antiquated nor obsolete. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There was substantial opposition to the new Constitution, because it moved the power to arm the state militias from the states to the federal government. This created a fear that the federal government, by neglecting the upkeep of the militia, could have overwhelming military force at its disposal through its power to maintain a standing army and navy, leading to a confrontation with the states, encroaching on the states' reserved powers and even engaging in a military takeover. A foundation of American political thought during the Revolutionary period was the well justified concern about political corruption and governmental tyranny. Even the federalists, fending off their opponents who accused them of creating an oppressive regime, were careful to acknowledge the risks of tyranny. Against that backdrop, the framers saw the personal right to bear arms as a potential check against tyranny. Theodore Sedgwick of Massachusetts expressed this sentiment by declaring that it is "a chimerical idea to suppose that a country like this could ever be enslaved . . . Is it possible . . . that an army could be raised for the purpose of enslaving themselves or their brethren? or, if raised whether they could subdue a nation of freemen, who know how to prize liberty and who have arms in their hands?"[81][82] Noah Webster similarly argued: Before a standing army can rule the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.[82][83] George Mason argued the importance of the militia and right to bear arms by reminding his compatriots of England's efforts "to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them . . . by totally disusing and neglecting the militia." He also clarified that under prevailing practice the militia included all people, rich and poor. "Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." Because all were members of the militia, all enjoyed the right to individually bear arms to serve therein.[82][84] The framers thought the personal right to bear arms to be a paramount right by which other rights could be protected. Therefore, writing after the ratification of the Constitution, but before the election of the first Congress, James Monroe included "the right to keep and bear arms" in a list of basic "human rights", which he proposed to be added to the Constitution.[82][85] Patrick Henry, in the Virginia ratification convention June 5, 1788, argued for the dual rights to arms and resistance to oppression: Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.[86] While both Monroe and Adams supported ratification of the Constitution, its most influential framer was James Madison. In Federalist No. 46, he confidently contrasted the federal government of the United States to the European kingdoms, which he contemptuously described as "afraid to trust the people with arms." He assured his fellow citizens that they need never fear their government because of "the advantage of being armed...."[82][87] =-=-=-=-= There was no discussion of slaves or slavery with respect to the 2nd Amendment at the time of its drafting but there are numerous discussions concerning the need to be able to forcibly protect citizens and states against potential federal tyranny. I think this pretty much discredits the viewpoint exhorted by Glover. Consideration of slaves and Indians had little or nothing to do with the creation 2nd amendment and it is intellectually dishonest to try to inject these considerations a couple of centuries after the fact as a matter of weapon baiting incitement. I am disappointed in Glover for this lapse in critical thinking. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2nd_amendment it was not 'created' because of slaves, at least not by Madison,,,, but it certainly APPEALED to those who wanted to protect against a slave revolt |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The second amendment was added December 15, 1791, well before the end of slavery. It had nothing at all to do with slavery, which ended in 1863. The second amendment, was created in order to prevent tyranny by the government. It appears, that amendment has discarded, with no regard to the foundation the United States founding fathers set forth. Period<-- IM not sure what the date of the amendment has to do with its appeal or inspiration,, it was during a period of slavery in america, amongst other things so its not unreasonable to believe that slaveholders would find the reassurance appealing as a way to make sure to keep slaves in line,,, Danny Glover is seeing racism where there isn't any. The 2nd Amendment came into existence for the reason stated in the amendment: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." When the U.S. Bill of Rights went into effect, there was still a danger of the infant USA being engulfed in another war, which is what happened in 1812. The 2nd Amendment made it possible for adult male citizens to become soldiers in hurry should a war break out. Attempting to link the 2nd Amendment to slavery is jumping the shark at best. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Racism may just be the tip of the ice burg here. I think that a lot of men find power in a loaded gun and they use that power to exert their will over others... especially women and minorities. If things like machine guns were banned, I think that the world would continue to turn and life would go on just fine without them. But don't tell that to a right winger or an NRA member.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Butterfly
on
Mon 01/21/13 09:21 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Racism may just be the tip of the ice burg here. I think that a lot of men find power in a loaded gun and they use that power to exert their will over others... especially women and minorities. If things like machine guns were banned, I think that the world would continue to turn and life would go on just fine without them. But don't tell that to a right winger or an NRA member. Or a patriot who believes in the constitution! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Butterfly
on
Mon 01/21/13 09:39 PM
|
|
I don't think that the founding fathers had bazookas and machine guns in mind when they wrote the constitution. It's kind of silly to assume they did. No offense, I don't want to sound like a total jerk here, but I do have strong feelings on most political issues.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Racism may just be the tip of the ice burg here. I think that a lot of men find power in a loaded gun and they use that power to exert their will over others... especially women and minorities. If things like machine guns were banned, I think that the world would continue to turn and life would go on just fine without them. But don't tell that to a right winger or an NRA member. First of all, automatic weapons are banned in the USA. So, you are making a straw-man argument. Second, the 2nd Amendment applies to women and minorities, too. It is foolish at best to believe that defenders of the 2nd Amendment are trying to use the 2nd Amendment to oppress anyone. That was never the Amendment's purpose. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The second amendment was added December 15, 1791, well before the end of slavery. It had nothing at all to do with slavery, which ended in 1863. The second amendment, was created in order to prevent tyranny by the government. It appears, that amendment has discarded, with no regard to the foundation the United States founding fathers set forth. Period<-- IM not sure what the date of the amendment has to do with its appeal or inspiration,, it was during a period of slavery in america, amongst other things so its not unreasonable to believe that slaveholders would find the reassurance appealing as a way to make sure to keep slaves in line,,, Now imagine the slaves also owning/possessing firearms... Balance of power? It would be much harder to keep them as slaves if they all had guns, would it not? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think that the founding fathers had bazookas and machine guns in mind when they wrote the constitution. It's kind of silly to assume they did. No offense, I don't want to sound like a total jerk here, but I do have strong feelings on most political issues. For the record you do not sound at all like a jerk. Truth is I too have strong feelings considering political issue (which can be burdening at times). Now, on the issue of what our founding fathers intended... I believe our forefathers new very well that technology would continue to advance. (Although, i agree, nuclear warheads may have been a bit of a stretch for the imagination). But the heart behind the bill of rights was to limit government control/power over the people. The 2nd amendment, which is in question, was specifically designed as a last resort for the people to overthrow the powers that be, were they to become too corrupt. If police started "black bagging" protesters, and random threats to powerful, corrupt leaders, started disappearing (lets say under the patriot act), the people need firepower to fight this. Again, I realize that this is an extreme case scenario. But historically, it will happen as it has many times, in many countries. Especially if we let things like the patriot act, the fairness doctrine and gun ownership infringements continually pass under the guise of safety. "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin That all being said, if we all take a gander to statistics provided by the Department of Justice, and the FBI records, we will find no correlation between gun laws and gun violence. (This tends to anger both sides of the debate.) Clinton's assault weapon bans had no impact on gun violence (didn't even prevent the Columbine shootings), states/cities with the strictest gun laws still remain the most dangerous, and even the argument of europe having less crime is trumped by Mexico (illegal for citizens to own guns, yet has one of the highest rates of gun violence) and switzerland ( 1 in 10 citizens own a military issued machine gun, yet gun violence is low even when compared to europe). Heck, I'm pretty sure every single (or at least almost every) incident of mass shootings occurred in a "gun free" zone. SO we have a separate issue(s) leading to violence here. I only wish politicians would forget about agendas for a minute and try avenues that don't involve taking away liberty from the populace. Funny how mental health care is only now being addressed (with very minor tweaks) and only in passing. I believe this, over-medication of the population, and unawareness are much bigger issues. Heck they seem to be ignoring our economic issues (which is still fading), and there IS a direct relationship between the economy and violent crime. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There was substantial opposition to the new Constitution, because it moved the power to arm the state militias from the states to the federal government. This created a fear that the federal government, by neglecting the upkeep of the militia, could have overwhelming military force at its disposal through its power to maintain a standing army and navy, leading to a confrontation with the states, encroaching on the states' reserved powers and even engaging in a military takeover. A foundation of American political thought during the Revolutionary period was the well justified concern about political corruption and governmental tyranny. Even the federalists, fending off their opponents who accused them of creating an oppressive regime, were careful to acknowledge the risks of tyranny. Against that backdrop, the framers saw the personal right to bear arms as a potential check against tyranny. Theodore Sedgwick of Massachusetts expressed this sentiment by declaring that it is "a chimerical idea to suppose that a country like this could ever be enslaved . . . Is it possible . . . that an army could be raised for the purpose of enslaving themselves or their brethren? or, if raised whether they could subdue a nation of freemen, who know how to prize liberty and who have arms in their hands?"[81][82] Noah Webster similarly argued: Before a standing army can rule the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.[82][83] George Mason argued the importance of the militia and right to bear arms by reminding his compatriots of England's efforts "to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them . . . by totally disusing and neglecting the militia." He also clarified that under prevailing practice the militia included all people, rich and poor. "Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." Because all were members of the militia, all enjoyed the right to individually bear arms to serve therein.[82][84] The framers thought the personal right to bear arms to be a paramount right by which other rights could be protected. Therefore, writing after the ratification of the Constitution, but before the election of the first Congress, James Monroe included "the right to keep and bear arms" in a list of basic "human rights", which he proposed to be added to the Constitution.[82][85] Patrick Henry, in the Virginia ratification convention June 5, 1788, argued for the dual rights to arms and resistance to oppression: Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.[86] While both Monroe and Adams supported ratification of the Constitution, its most influential framer was James Madison. In Federalist No. 46, he confidently contrasted the federal government of the United States to the European kingdoms, which he contemptuously described as "afraid to trust the people with arms." He assured his fellow citizens that they need never fear their government because of "the advantage of being armed...."[82][87] =-=-=-=-= There was no discussion of slaves or slavery with respect to the 2nd Amendment at the time of its drafting but there are numerous discussions concerning the need to be able to forcibly protect citizens and states against potential federal tyranny. I think this pretty much discredits the viewpoint exhorted by Glover. Consideration of slaves and Indians had little or nothing to do with the creation 2nd amendment and it is intellectually dishonest to try to inject these considerations a couple of centuries after the fact as a matter of weapon baiting incitement. I am disappointed in Glover for this lapse in critical thinking. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2nd_amendment it was not 'created' because of slaves, at least not by Madison,,,, but it certainly APPEALED to those who wanted to protect against a slave revolt Well I'm sure that the Southern slave owners wanted their guns. And arming African Americans was soon to become a wild and contentious subject about 50 years later... But it bothers me that Glover and Hartmann can be so ignorant in their comments! Glover said “The Second Amendment comes from the right to protect themselves from slave revolts and from uprisings by Native Americans.” “A revolt from people who were stolen from their land or revolt from people whose land was stolen from, that’s what the genesis of the Second Amendment is,” he added. I mean that is just ignorant. This was NOT the genesis of the Amendment and protection from slave uprisings or Indian uprisings was NOT where the 2nd Amendment came from. According to later reports, Texas A&M campus officials have already begun to distance themselves from Glover’s comments. There is never any good excuse for poor scholarship and false commentary regarding the Constitution and Amendments.... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
s1owhand
on
Tue 01/22/13 05:12 PM
|
|
multiple posts
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
s1owhand
on
Tue 01/22/13 05:13 PM
|
|
multiple posts
|
|
|
|
|
