Slaves hate the 2nd Amendment

Free download. Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device. You can download and read online Slaves hate the 2nd Amendment file PDF Book only if you are registered here. And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with Slaves hate the 2nd Amendment book. Happy reading Slaves hate the 2nd Amendment Bookeveryone. Download file Free Book PDF Slaves hate the 2nd Amendment at Complete PDF Library. This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats. Here is The CompletePDF Book Library. It's free to register here to get Book file PDF Slaves hate the 2nd Amendment Pocket Guide.

And unfortunately, pre and post emancipation, yes, the southern whites in power have used firearms to suppress the autonomy and freedom of African American, essentially forcing them back into servitude. Despite recent news and events, no one, especially pro 2nd amendment supporters, support the killing of citizens and children.

What we demand is that the freedoms that extend to all of us barring any violent history, felonies, dishonorable military discharge, mental illness, etc not be stripped due to the acts of such a small few and based on fear, anger or anxiety.

I will leave you with a quote from Benjamin Franklin:. I was taught in school that during the revolutionary war, redcoats could let them selfs into your home. They would help themselves to your food , home ,or wife. If you had a rifle you could defend yourself. Even the government if need to. I was both thrilled and horrified when I read the truly marvelous report from your husband about all thats gone on in yourlives recently. My very best wishes to you both and hearty congrats, so thoroughly desrved. You are truly amazing. Best Kathie.

Thank you Kathie — we miss you. Guatemala and Mexico, unfortunately, have some of the highest level of firearms deaths despite having very restrictive firearms laws…. As I see it, the real source of our troubles is the culture of Capitalism. Focus on that, not on dividing the oppressed; that is what the Capitalists want you to do.

Top Right Menu

If that is what you are saying, please help me and the readers understand how this post focuses on dividing the oppressed. The Second Amendment was intended for every man. I think you may have history confused for when the Democrats of latter days enacted gun control measures to keep poor men and women like African Americans and other minorities at the time from obtaining firearms. I am a black man, who lives in , enthused with the fact I am allowed to freely own firearms for whatever legal and defensive reasons that may come about.

Based on that argument I guess the slaves could have had their freedom but simply opted to remain in bondage. Your email address will not be published. The constitutions of North Carolina and Massachusetts did guarantee the right, to ensure proper defense of the states.

The constitution of Pennsylvania guaranteed the right with no mention of the militia at the time, Pennsylvania had no organized militia. One of the arguments of the Anti-Federalists during the ratification debates was that the new nation did not arm the militias, an odd argument since neither did the U. Finally, Madison's original proposal for the Bill of Rights mentioned the individual right much more directly than the final result that came out of Congress.

Perhaps in the 's, the rise of a tyrant to a leadership position in the U. Today, in my opinion, the voters are much too sophisticated to elect a leader whose stated aims would be to suppress freedom or declare martial law. For the leader whose unstated aim it was to seize the nation, the task would be more than daunting — it would be next to impossible.

The size and scope of the conspiracy needed, the cooperation of patriots who would see right through such a plan — it is unfathomable, the stuff of fiction. There are some who fear the rise in executive power under the second Bush presidency is just such a usurpation, and in some ways it may be. But similar usurpations of power by the Congress and the President, such as the Alien and Sedition Acts, the suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War, or the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II, were all eventually overturned or struck down and then condemned by history.

My hope is that history can be our guide this time, too. The defense of our borders had not been a cause for concern for nearly a century before the subject really came up again around the time of the turn of the millennium, in Concern with border defense again became an issue after September 11, , when a series of terrorist attacks, both in the form of hijacked airliners crashing into buildings and anthrax-laced mail, made people realize that we do have enemies that wish to invade our nation, though not on the scale of an army.

But while each state has its National Guard it can call up to guard the borders, the coordination needed is much more on a national scale, and special units of the regular army or border patrol are better suited for such duty than the Guard. Today's debate. With the historical context set above, a look at the current interpretations of the 2nd Amendment are appropriate.

These interpretations tend to lean in one of two ways. The first is that the amendment was meant to ensure that individuals have the absolute right to own firearms; the second is that the amendment was meant to ensure that States could form, arm, and maintain their own militias. Either way, it is a bar to federal action only, because the 2nd Amendment has not been incorporated by the Supreme Court to apply to the states.

This means that within its own constitution, a state may be as restrictive or non-restrictive as it wishes to be in the regulation of firearms; likewise, private rules and regulations may prohibit or encourage firearms. For example, if a housing association wishes to bar any firearm from being held within its borders, it is free to do so.

The Supreme Court, in permitting the United States to apply a stamp tax to sawed-off shotguns a move, it was argued, that was intended to make such weapons de facto illegal , essentially said that if a weapon does not contribute to the maintenance of a militia, and has no use in ensuring the common defense, it can be regulated United States v. Miller , US []. Though the outcome of Miller was never fully resolved the Court asked that Miller prove the relevance of the sawed-off shotgun to the maintenance of the militia, but Jack Miller died before he could, and the case died with him , the rationale used in Miller has been the basis for all gun control laws since As the GPO page notes , "At what point regulation or prohibition of what classes of firearms would conflict with the Amendment, if at all, the Miller case does little more than cast a faint degree of illumination toward an answer.

Both contemporary interpretations are correct, in a way. As illustrated in the first section, the amendment does appear to have been designed to protect the militias, and it was also designed to protect an individual's right to own and bear a gun. The question, then, is do we have to adhere to both tenets of the amendment today? If we decide to do away with the individual ownership aspect of the Amendment, reinterpreting the amendment to allow highly restricted gun ownership, we seem to open the door to radical reinterpretation of other, more basic parts of the Constitution.

If we decide to do nothing, and allow unrestricted gun ownership, we run the risk of creating a society of the gun, a risk that seems too great to take. So the real question seems to be, can we have the a constitutional freedom to bear arms, and still allow restriction and regulation? Reasonable restrictions do seem to be the way to go, acknowledging the Amendment, but molding it, as we've done with much of the Constitution.


  • Abolition of Slavery;
  • The Las Vegas shooting-range owner backing gun control: 'If we can make people safer, why not?'.
  • Kanye West says he wants to change 13th Amendment, not scrap it;

After all, we have freedom of speech in the United States, but you are not truly free to say whatever you wish. You cannot incite violence without consequence; you cannot libel someone without consequence; you cannot shout "Fire! Why cannot gun ownership by similarly regulated without violating the Constitution? Of course, prosecution for speech violations only take place after the fact, and regulation of gun ownership is necessarily different — it is a "prior restraint," a condition rarely allowed in speech restrictions, but necessary in gun restrictions.

The trick is finding that balance between freedom and reasonable regulation, between unreasonable unfettered ownership and unreasonable prior restraint. Gun ownership is indeed a right — but it is also a grand responsibility. With responsibility comes the interests of society to ensure that guns are used safely and are used by those with proper training and licensing. If we can agree on this simple premise, it should not be too difficult to work out the details and find a proper compromise. Recent developments. In the case, the court ruled that D.

Specifically, the appellants, residents of D. The Court found that in spite of the first part of the 2nd Amendment — that which refers to the militia — "the Second Amendment's premise is that guns would be kept by citizens for self-protection and hunting. Archived from the original on 16 October Virginia Convention.

Archived from the original on 13 June The national government has an exclusive right to provide for arming, organizing, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States. The state governments have the power of appointing the officers, and of training the militia, according to the discipline prescribed by Congress, if they should think proper to prescribe any.

How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment - POLITICO Magazine

Should the national government wish to render the militia useless, they may neglect them, and let them perish, in order to have a pretence of establishing a standing army. September 28, The History of the Society of Friends in America. London, UK: W. Political Science Quarterly. November 11, December 18, April 20, July 8, General Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. An Armed Community: The origins and meaning of the right to bear arms.

The Founders Constitution. The University of Chicago Press.

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution

Archived from the original on 9 March Retrieved 10 April Archived from the original on 5 August A Citizen of America Noah Webster. Pamphlet: An Examination into the leading principles of the Federal Constitution. Archived from the original on 16 December Retrieved 11 December A two thousand-page commentary on the Constitution put out by the Library of Congress in has copious annotation for most clauses, but less than a page and a half for the Second Amendment.

A Necessary Evil: A history of American distrust of government. Simon and Schuster. Whitehill deals with guns in three of his fifteen headings. Article 8 begins: "The inhabitants of the several states shall have liberty to fowl and hunt in seasonable times The items on the [Whitehill's] list were never discussed in the convention, which when on to approve the Constitution.

Archived from the original on 26 August Archived from the original on 19 March US Constitution. Archived from the original on 30 August Ford, Paul L. Miscellaneous Papers of James Monroe. James Monroe Papers. New York Public Library. Speech on the Federal Constitution. Virginia Ratifying Convention. Raw Story. Archived from the original on 23 February Retrieved 23 February House of Representatives. Amendments to the Constitution 1st Congress, 1st Session. Archived from the original on January 11, Archived from the original on September 4, Archived from the original on 10 January Archived from the original on January 26, Archived from the original on 19 December Archived from the original on 4 September November 4, Archived PDF from the original on 28 January Retrieved 3 April A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation.