quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

gotta love the comments at the bottom of the "truth-out" (aka liberal la la land, or what happens when the huffington post has sex with mother jones) article:

"Sadly, this article has misled people and has not correctly reviewed the historical documents we have at our disposal. Yes slavery was an issue, yes there was right to protect oneself, yes there was an expectation to serve in militias but for the 2a to be completely be based on slavery is completely misleading and flat out wrong."

"Bullshit, pure, nonsensical, liberal bullshit"

"I could waste my time and point out all the inaccuracies and the accuracies that have been paraphrased but I hate wasting time so here. anyone who actually believes this bullshit, educate yourselves:

http://www.theroot.com/articles/politics/2013/01/second_amendment_slave_control_not_the_aim.html.

https://historyandancestry.wordpress.com/2013/12/08/was-the-2nd-amendment-about-preserving-slavery/"

“Just another lame attempt by the Left to twist history to fit their detestable agenda. If the Liberals plan to go after the 2nd Amendment, just how long do you think it will be before they go after the 1st Amendment and every other right the Constitution protects. Liberalism is the antithesis of the spirit that made America the great country it was before Obama got elected by America's Worst Generation.”

"This is a bit misleading. The right to bear arms as a right within the country for citizens and not just militia were to keep enough power in the hands of the people that they could successfully overthrow the government in the event that it became tyrannical."

“It was ALTERED to place that power at the discretion of individual states (as a state right rather than a federal right) because of several things. Yes one was so a few states could use it to maintain slave patrol militias. Others were because states, even some in the north, were fearful that a federal government could alter the terms of the amendment against their will. Many states, both north and south, wanted as much power left to the states as possible rather than having a stronger federal government. State governments are not well equipped to make decisions that affect the country as a whole, just as a city government is not equipped to make decisions for an entire state.”

“What a load of poppycock. What became the second amendment was inspired by the recommendations included in the Ratifications by Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Virginia and I forget the fifth. It's purpose was to prevent the general government from depriving the States of their militias which were regarded as essential to prevent among other things a rogue government of the United States. Read the battle Strategy by Hamilton in Federalist 28, and the statements by Madison In Federalist 46 regarding the inability of the government of the United States to overwhelm the States due to the common ownership (mandatory by law in many if not most States including New Hampshire) of firearms.”

“Well, this has to be somewhat embarrassing. Thom Hartmann apparently didn't do his homework and instead simply lifted this article from Bogus's already debunked law review article. Shame.”

“This lie is being floated again?”

“Standard Liberal BS, blame it on slavery/racism and everyone will give in. Sorry not happening”

“Try reading Federalist Paper #46 for the REAL reason for the Second Amendment and by extension the entire Bill of Rights. This is just more progressive fascist/totalitarian/collectivist/communist/socialist (take your choice) drivel designed to "progress" the destruction of the United States bit by bit. But the Bill of Rights has to go especially the 2nd. They have almost destroyed property rights and many others but the Second has to go. Its the true power of the people and the enemy KNOWS it.”

“Don't believe a thing in this article. It is UTTER RUBISH. It is just flat-out factually incorrect. For a point-by-point correction to this sloppy and silly revisionist history, read the following article by a person who is actually PRO-gun control. http://www.theroot.com/articles/politics/2013/01/second_amendment_slave_control_not_the_aim.html.
It's hard to tell whether Hartmann is a moron, intellectually lazy, or just a liar. Perhaps he's a little bit of all three, but whatever the reason, he has demonstrated his complete lack of credibility.”

“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."”
“Yeah let's just rewrite history and ignore this thing we call the Federalist Papers.”

“"The Second Amendment was Ratified to Preserve Slavery" Or maybe a fledgling country made up of armed citizens had just fought a rebellion against a tyrannical government and won....na, that ain't it. Must be #racism and #slavery”

“I feel sorry for any idiot who falls for this crap. Please, this is how I winged english papers all through my school years. Anyone can take random quotes and excerpts from past political figures and warp them into something else to spew out their own twisted view of things.”

"Though his point here is well taken, he misses the point of the foundation for the second and in fact all of the amendments found in the Bill of Rights!! These were formed because of the Coercive Laws passed by Britain limiting freedoms of the colonial citizens after the Boston Tea Party! Gun ownership was selected as the second amendment, just behind the freedom of speech, because our founders knew that one's right to speak must be protected by one's willingness to take up arms. This was rooted in the fact that after these Coercive Laws were passed that hundreds of "militia" members formed to fight the British in opposition to the laws and the infringement of their freedoms! With these FACTS known, not just assumptions like this author uses, the foundation for the Bill of Rights is based on those "freedoms" and rights guaranteed and ordained by our creator as inalienable rights, not governmental protections, grants or liberties"

"There are times I wish I had studied psychology instead of engineering. Perhaps I would understand why those on the left are pathological liars and why their followers, who know they are being lied to, swallow the lies as if they were Kool-Aid."

[am I loving this too much?]

"The argument that slavery was the "purpose" of ratifying the 2nd amendment is both ludicrous and a blatant attempt to misconstrue what the founding fathers were thinking. The multitude of arguments for the 2nd Amendment by the founding fathers (in full context) support exactly what they were all thinking, and it was nothing to do with slavery! A very twisted and invalid argument indeed yours is."

"My friend on facebook who is an avid historian says: Carl B Johnson "That is a wonderful piece of fiction that even liberal historians have discounted. For one, the second amendment did NOT exist in 1788 when Virginia was being wooed - and from there his whole theory falls apart as nothing but a bunch of hogwash. a very poor account of history. Nobody is saying that slavery was not an argument during that era - it is just that this article is a fictionalized version of what actually occurred - and what actually occurred is very well documented.""

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
Ok, we'll go through this US History lesson slowly so you can keep up....
...

quote:

ORIGINAL: http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_qna.htm
Q: What is the Militia?

A: It was best defined by George Mason, one of the Framers of the U.S. Constitution, who said, "Who are the Militia? They consist now of the whole people, except for a few public officers."

Q: If they're the whole people, why do we need a special word like "militia" to refer to them?

A: The Militia is the people in a certain capacity, as defenders of the community and enforcers of the law. In that capacity, they are expected to have and use the tools needed to perform that role: personal weapons, and particularly firearms.

Q: Isn't that what we have the military and police for?

A: Yes, we do hire some of us to perform these duties on a full-time, paid basis. But that does not relieve us of the power or the duty to perform those duties when the situation calls for it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx


ORIGINAL: bounty44

thank you bama,

Get a room you two.

and for some fascinating history:

"Documents on the First Congress Debate on Arms and Militia"


That makes three out of three links that do not work

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx


ORIGINAL: ifmaz


That makes three out of three links that do not work


Sorry, "do not work" how? The URL comes up fine for me. What error do you get?



This is what I get

The website declined to show this webpage



HTTP 403