The racist history behind the Second Amendment

[pecksniff]

Interview with Carol Anderson, author of The Second: Race and Guns in a Fatally Unequal America.

This emerged out of the fear of Black people, from slavery, that there was this massive fear about the slave revolt, Black people demanding their freedom, being willing to have an uprising to gain their freedom. And what that meant then was that you had this language of "We've got to keep this ferocious monster in chains." And you saw, with each revolt, with each uprising, a series of statutes being put in place to say that African — that the enslaved, that Black people could not own weapons, that they could not have access to weapons. And you also saw the rise in the structure of slave patrols and militias, that were there and designed to contain that Black population.
As the nation began to develop, as you had this war of independence, there was this fear of arming Black people, the fear that even freed Blacks who were armed would get — would provide a kind of sense of what freedom looked like to the enslaved. But the exigencies of war required that arming, required having Black folks in the Continental Army. But as the nation developed after that war, one of the things that you had happening was with the Constitution, with the drafting of the Constitution. Because the militias themselves had proven so untrustworthy, unreliable as a force to fight against the British invasion, that James Madison, in drafting the Constitution, had language in there that you would have federal control of the militias.
Well, when the Constitution went up for ratification to the states, by the time it got to Virginia, the Anti-Federalists in Virginia were in an uproar. George Mason and Patrick Henry were thinking about this militia being under the control of the federal government. They were like, "We will be left defenseless. We cannot trust the federal government, that has these folks from Pennsylvania and these folks from Massachusetts, to be willing to engage the militia when the slaves revolt. We cannot trust the federal government to protect us. We will be left defenseless." And they began to demand a Bill of Rights that would provide protection, that would curtail federal power. And they began to demand, as well, a new constitutional convention.

That threat of what that meant sent James Madison into the 1st Congress determined to write a Bill of Rights that would quell that dissent, that would short-circuit that movement for a new constitutional convention. And we've already seen what the power of the South has meant, in terms of the — when the Constitution was being drafted itself, how the South said that "We will not sign on to become part of this United States of America if we don't get the three-fifths clause, if we don't get 20 additional years on the Atlantic slave trade, if we don't get a Fugitive Slave Clause." And so the South had already wielded its power in terms of being willing to scuttle the United States of America. And Madison believed strongly that this threat coming out of the Anti-Federalists in the South, out of Virginia, would do the same thing. And that becomes the basis for the Second Amendment.

 

[CornusKousa]

Thanks for pointing out why 2A is so important.

 

[SyLent]

only racists

see racism

in everything

 

[pecksniff]

Thanks for pointing out why 2A is so important.

Yeah, there might be a slave rebellion any day now . . .

 

[CornusKousa]

Yeah, there might be a slave rebellion any day now . . .

Wouldn't be slaves if they had weapons now would they???

Could you imagine if slaves in 1858 were all given AK-47's and 2,000 rounds each??

Slavery would have been over before DC ever even knew what was going on. It's extremely hard to enslave someone who can take you and your whole fucking crew out with the flick of a finger.


That's why for all of human history the VERY first step to enslaving a group of people has been to disarm them.

 

[pecksniff]

Wouldn't be slaves if they had weapons now would they???

Unless they're Janissaries.

 

[CornusKousa]

Unless they're Janissaries.

Being a soldier is not the same as being a slave.

 

[Bud_Spencer]

The entire premise is, as befits a Pecky post, bullshit:

https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/06/the-1619-project-comes-for-the-second-amendment/

“In short, James Madison, the Virginian, knew ‘that the militia’s prime function in his state, and throughout the south, was slave control.’”

The author frames the quote as if Madison, the author of the Bill of Rights, had said it himself — or, if we’re being generous, that it’s a fair representation of his views. When you follow the book’s endnote, however, it leads to a 1998 paper titled “The Hidden History of the Second Amendment,” written by anti-gun activist Carl T. Bogus, who shares Anderson’s thesis. It is his quote. Nowhere does Bogus offer any sample of Madison declaring, or even implying, that slave control was the impetus for the Second Amendment.

 

[pecksniff]

The entire premise is, as befits a Pecky post, bullshit:

You can never, ever call bullshit by citing the National Review.

 

[Bud_Spencer]

You can never, ever call bullshit by citing the National Review.

There is a specific claim made by Anderson that is is refuted therein. Do you claim this is untrue?

 

[SyLent]

You can never, ever call bullshit by citing the National Review.

why

 

[Rightguide]

The Second Amendment rose out of the extremes of British oppression and the desire to protect and preserve new and hard won liberty. It had nothing at all to do with a fear of black people. To say otherwise is plain ignorant or malignant agitprop.

 

[SyLent]

Capitol Hill residents fencing off parkways to keep homeless away from properties


Thats FEAR of BLACK PEOPLE

 

[Rightguide]

You can never, ever call bullshit by citing the National Review.

^^^
Big lie technique demonstrated by big time liar.

 

[pecksniff]

The Second Amendment rose out of the extremes of British oppression and the desire to protect and preserve new and hard won liberty. It had nothing at all to do with a fear of black people. To say otherwise is plain ignorant or malignant agitprop.

In the South, "militia" meant the same thing as "slave patrol."

 

[bellisarius]

So what's the stupid bitches point? Now that blacks and other minorities can own guns we should shit can the 2A and confiscate the guns so them there "darkies" can't own them...................again?

I will freely admit that post civil war virtually every firearm restriction was passed to keep blacks (and other minorities) from having guns, essentially every large city with a substantial black population.

The moron that wrote this, and other drivel, actually gets paid to sit around and dream up alternative histories. Her assertion re. the 2A has absolutely NO basis in fact.

 

[Bud_Spencer]

In the South, "militia" meant the same thing as "slave patrol."

So why did states that were free of slavery hav their own version of the 2A? Further, why would they vote to ratify the Amendment if it actively prevented abolition. The quotes in this piece are unpersuasive.

 

[bellisarius]

So why did states that were free of slavery hav their own version of the 2A? Further, why would they vote to ratify the Amendment if it actively prevented abolition. The quotes in this piece are unpersuasive.

Revisionist histories based on an over active imagination generally are.

 

[Dom70]

The Second Amendment rose out of the extremes of British oppression and the desire to protect and preserve new and hard won liberty. It had nothing at all to do with a fear of black people. To say otherwise is plain ignorant or malignant agitprop.

AMEN brother!

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

The entire premise is, as befits a Pecky post, bullshit:

https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/06/the-1619-project-comes-for-the-second-amendment/

“In short, James Madison, the Virginian, knew ‘that the militia’s prime function in his state, and throughout the south, was slave control.’”

The author frames the quote as if Madison, the author of the Bill of Rights, had said it himself — or, if we’re being generous, that it’s a fair representation of his views. When you follow the book’s endnote, however, it leads to a 1998 paper titled “The Hidden History of the Second Amendment,” written by anti-gun activist Carl T. Bogus, who shares Anderson’s thesis. It is his quote. Nowhere does Bogus offer any sample of Madison declaring, or even implying, that slave control was the impetus for the Second Amendment.

Smart comment.

 

[Rightguide]

In the South, "militia" meant the same thing as "slave patrol."

No it wasn't. The South and everyone else in America already had guns. The South had their slaves in chains, They weren't worried about bound unarmed slaves.

 

[pecksniff]

No it wasn't. The South and everyone else in America already had guns. The South had their slaves in chains, They weren't worried about bound unarmed slaves.

They were worried, because slave rebellions did happen occasionally. They always failed because the whites were better-organized, i.e., they had militias.

 

[Rightguide]

They were worried, because slave rebellions did happen occasionally. They always failed because the whites were better-organized, i.e., they had militias.

You ever hear of the Cherokee slave revolt?

 

[pecksniff]

Capitol Hill residents fencing off parkways to keep homeless away from properties


Thats FEAR of BLACK PEOPLE

At least they're not using guns.

BTW, there are no "parkways" in the Capitol Hill area. There is a parkway from DC to Baltimore, but you have to go to the Beltway to access it.

 

[pecksniff]

You ever hear of the Cherokee slave revolt?

No, but I wouldn't be surprised if there was one -- I know the Cherokee made an effort to copy the whites in all respects, including keeping slaves. They even set up a constitutional republic with a law code. It didn't save them when the whites decided they wanted their land.