COVID-19 RESOURCES
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

The Slavery Part Wasn't The Most Interesting Information.

FGB

FGB

Literotica Guru
Joined
Aug 25, 2013
Posts
7,331
For 20 years now, a well-meaning law professor has been peddling the fiction that the Second Amendment – guaranteeing the right of Americans to keep and bear arms – was adopted to protect slavery. He first proposed this in a 1998 law review article and trotted it out again in a recent New York Times op-ed.

The trouble is: It’s untrue. Not a single one of America’s founders is known to have suggested such a purpose...


http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/06/22/second-amendment-had-nothing-to-do-with-slavery.html
 
FGB said:
For 20 years now, a well-meaning law professor has been peddling the fiction that the Second Amendment – guaranteeing the right of Americans to keep and bear arms – was adopted to protect slavery. He first proposed this in a 1998 law review article and trotted it out again in a recent New York Times op-ed.

The trouble is: It’s untrue. Not a single one of America’s founders is known to have suggested such a purpose...


http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/06/22/second-amendment-had-nothing-to-do-with-slavery.html
Click to expand...

How many conversations are happening about correlating the 2nd to slavery?
 
But much like today, IF the right things were done correctly to start with, life would be much simpler and of a certainty have less bitching going on.

I think ...I could be wrong people being people.

The USA would be different for sure.
 
FGB said:
IF the right things were done correctly to start with, life would be much simpler and of a certainty have less bitching going on.
Click to expand...
Who decides what's correct? Who appoints the deciders? Who enforces their decisions? How many bothersome people must be eliminated to set things right? Are you sure you won't be sent through the wrong door?
 
I can guarantee that random citizens not in an organized militia having AR-15s capable of destroying many lives quickly and going in schools and churches and movie houses and concert halls and slaughtering people wasn't anywhere close to what those forging the 2nd Amendment had in mind either.
 
That's something I haven't heard of myself.

I was under the impression that the right to bear came out of the British rule, when the UK Government was seen as being unacceptable for taxing paper and some other stuff but not allowing US inhabitants to elect Members of Parliament. So that was presented as a tax on education and news. Tea may have been a trigger point but wasn't a major factor.

Because the French were already at war with Britain, the US peoples accepted assistance from the French, although their government was considerably worse and led to the French Revolution a few years later. The UK never had such a revolution. But the French influence led to driving on the right, plus the possibility of having to defend against a really shitty government like one similar to the French model.
 
KeithD said:
I can guarantee that random citizens not in an organized militia having AR-15s capable of destroying many lives quickly and going in schools and churches and movie houses and concert halls and slaughtering people wasn't anywhere close to what those forging the 2nd Amendment had in mind either.
Click to expand...

Are those happenings YOUR fault?
It's not mine.
Neither is car bombings. Running down people with cars or the thousands killed by drugs or abortion each year. all over the world or a thousand other ways.

I have guns just a capable of killing as the AR's.

Damned if those lazy bastards have done nothing but kill a few deer and turtles!

So why is this?

Simple.

I am not a murderer or a crazy, hate filled fanatical lunatic.


Now that I have had my Hot Chocolate!;)
 
Hypoxia said:
Who decides what's correct? Who appoints the deciders? Who enforces their decisions? How many bothersome people must be eliminated to set things right? Are you sure you won't be sent through the wrong door?
Click to expand...

You decide. By voting the people YOU think will vote the way YOU think this country should be run.

Not because you feel like it's right each and every day... or some dip shit says something you don't like.
 
An interesting view on the subject. One which leads to more than a few observations/questions.

By extension it can be read as the second amendment being an antidote to slavery. And taking that a step further one can easily see how enslavement can be much greater than just the situation of individuals 'owning' other individuals but can extend to entire population being enslaved by a political elite. (Feudalism comes to mind here.)

I don't agree with the author of that article's premise, but if his argument is to be taken at face value the existence of the 2nd amendment can be seen as a positive inclusion.
 
Is the growth of our government then an inverse measure of how many wish to ban gun-ownership?

:devil:


Is its bankruptcy our own moral bankruptcy in reflection?
 
WoundedKnee said:
Is the growth of our government then an inverse measure of how many wish to ban gun-ownership?

:devil:


Is its bankruptcy our own moral bankruptcy in reflection?
Click to expand...

Throughout history one of the hallmarks of any totalitarian government has been the disarming of the citizens.
 
Oh come on, I'm sure that Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot, pick a Kim or the Mullahs didn't fear their citizens having guns.

;) ;)
 
LOL, a Fox News opinion piece presented as conclusive evidence.

Are you in the Lit training program? :)
 
KeithD said:
I can guarantee that random citizens not in an organized militia having AR-15s capable of destroying many lives quickly and going in schools and churches and movie houses and concert halls and slaughtering people wasn't anywhere close to what those forging the 2nd Amendment had in mind either.
Click to expand...

Guns scare you, thank you snowflake.

Go to your safe space.

We'll try to keep inanimate objects from harming you.

Thank you for the guarantee.

All the places you mentioned are gun free zones, right?

Why does a civilian ar-15 frighten you when have flown some of the most badass planes on planet earth?

Pondering.
 
jomar said:
LOL, a Fox News opinion piece presented as conclusive evidence.

Are you in the Lit training program? :)
Click to expand...

Of course it never occurred to you that some of us may have read the root article linked in the FOX blurb...........did it?
 
Bray123 said:
That's something I haven't heard of myself.

I was under the impression that the right to bear came out of the British rule, when the UK Government was seen as being unacceptable for taxing paper and some other stuff but not allowing US inhabitants to elect Members of Parliament. So that was presented as a tax on education and news. Tea may have been a trigger point but wasn't a major factor.

Because the French were already at war with Britain, the US peoples accepted assistance from the French, although their government was considerably worse and led to the French Revolution a few years later. The UK never had such a revolution. But the French influence led to driving on the right, plus the possibility of having to defend against a really shitty government like one similar to the French model.
Click to expand...


England, not the UK which didn't exist, had a Civil War which led to a King being executed. It was followed by the so-called "Glorious Revolution" of 1688 which established a constitutional Monarchy with no executive powers.

IF the UK had been prepared to allow the 13 Colonies the freedoms (and representation) that existed in the UK at the time, and had made that offer before the Declaration of Independence - the US would not have been formed then. The UK government reluctantly did offer that but too late. Whether it was an offer in good faith is dubious. The King's Party (not the King who had no power) were against any concessions to the 13 Colonies.

Even if the 13 Colonies had accepted the offer of equal representation in the UK government at Westminster it would only have delayed US independence by a few decades at most.

There was an anomaly. The King had no constitutional power in the UK (or the 13 Colonies). But as Elector of Hanover he did have power, and an army which was sent to America as The King's German Legion.
 
bellisarius said:
Of course it never occurred to you that some of us may have read the root article linked in the FOX blurb...........did it?
Click to expand...

LOL, root article...The law review and op-ed that Fox opinion seeks to debunk? What’s your point?
 
FGB said:
For 20 years now, a well-meaning law professor has been peddling the fiction that the Second Amendment – guaranteeing the right of Americans to keep and bear arms – was adopted to protect slavery. He first proposed this in a 1998 law review article and trotted it out again in a recent New York Times op-ed.

The trouble is: It’s untrue. Not a single one of America’s founders is known to have suggested such a purpose...


http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/06/22/second-amendment-had-nothing-to-do-with-slavery.html
Click to expand...

A little revisionist history to create a false narrative in order to undermine the virtue of the individual right to bear arms. You see, since we ended slavery there's no need for the Amendment that protected it. This is about another manufactured narrative designed to indoctrinate and influence lesser intellects so they can assist the effort by hitting the streets and immediately amplifying that false narrative in order to create fake news and a political movement. This is an Alinsky type effort.
 
KeithD said:
I can guarantee that random citizens not in an organized militia having AR-15s capable of destroying many lives quickly and going in schools and churches and movie houses and concert halls and slaughtering people wasn't anywhere close to what those forging the 2nd Amendment had in mind either.
Click to expand...

They had no problem with citizens having "military grade" hardware (which an AR 15 ain't). That's made clear by decisions by the supreme court, statements by the founding fathers, etc. US citizens could have cannons at the time of the constitution being signed.

They probably didn't see the rise in social media and over-focus on mass shooters by the media, which leads to more copycat mass shooters.
 
KeithD said:
I can guarantee that random citizens not in an organized militia having AR-15s capable of destroying many lives quickly and going in schools and churches and movie houses and concert halls and slaughtering people wasn't anywhere close to what those forging the 2nd Amendment had in mind either.
Click to expand...

The founders left in the hands of the citizenry weapons capable of destroying the most powerful military on Earth at the time, dummy.
 
FGB said:
Are those happenings YOUR fault?
It's not mine.
Neither is car bombings. Running down people with cars or the thousands killed by drugs or abortion each year. all over the world or a thousand other ways.

I have guns just a capable of killing as the AR's.

Damned if those lazy bastards have done nothing but kill a few deer and turtles!

So why is this?

Simple.

I am not a murderer or a crazy, hate filled fanatical lunatic.


Now that I have had my Hot Chocolate!;)
Click to expand...

I can completely understand why you'd choose posting gibberish over responding on what the casters of the 2nd Amendment would think of the interpretation now being put to it and the effect it's having.
 
oggbashan said:
There was an anomaly. The King had no constitutional power in the UK (or the 13 Colonies). But as Elector of Hanover he did have power, and an army which was sent to America as The King's German Legion.
Click to expand...
So the Hessians weren't mercenaries but assigned troops. THAT is a fascinating tidbit I've not seen before. Thanks!

Stain_mAnn said:
Rightguide said:
The founders left in the hands of the citizenry weapons capable of destroying the most powerful military on Earth at the time, dummy.
Click to expand...
Oh, so it's not relevant in modern times?
Click to expand...
The colonial rebels depended heavily on French arms, ammo, and naval forces, who did most damage to the Brits, who were occupied elsewhere anyway in a global war George Washington inadvertently started.. Citizenry weapons did not include heavy land and naval artillery, privateer fleets, general staffs, and continued foreign assistance.

Aim a musket into a five-pound cannon; both fire at the same time; see what happens. If they missed, aim a AR-15 (with laser sight) at a combat chopper. See what happens. SPOILER: Not much will remain of the patriot.
_____

PS: The 2nd has already been overturned. The first two clauses are ignored; the last clause is overridden by restrictions. So goes the fantasy.
 
KeithD said:
I can completely understand why you'd choose posting gibberish over responding on what the casters of the 2nd Amendment would think of the interpretation now being put to it and the effect it's having.
Click to expand...

Um.

They are Dead.

And they were Pro armed citizens while alive so...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

F
David McCallum, star of hit TV series 'The Man From U.N.C.L.E.' and 'NCIS,' dies at 90
Replies
8
Views
376
JoeBeans2751
J
butters
TN proposing 4 amendments to its Constitution on the Nov. ballot...including banning slavery
Replies
14
Views
369
desecration
desecration
rae121452
today in lgbt+ history...
Replies
1
Views
212
rae121452
rae121452
rae121452
today in lgbt+ history...
2
Replies
26
Views
1K
pantalaimonlyra
P
rae121452
today in lgbt+ history...
Replies
1
Views
315
RedAllan
RedAllan
Back
Top