Rockin' in the free world since 2005.

[Total: 31    Average: 2.4/5]
53 Comments - View/Add
Hits: 7140
Rating: 2.4
Category:
Date: 03/23/13 05:03 PM

53 Responses to Second Amendment Written To Preserve Slavery

  1. Profile photo of SmagBoy1
    SmagBoy1 Male 40-49
    4432 posts
    March 23, 2013 at 5:04 pm
    Link: Second Amendment Written To Preserve Slavery - Good article on the reality versus the myth of the 2nd Amendment.
  2. Profile photo of lukeforv123
    lukeforv123 Male 18-29
    1053 posts
    March 23, 2013 at 5:21 pm
    That article was so stupid. The Second Amendment was created back at the time to ensure citizens could own a weapon to protect themselves against others, mainly from a future threat from the British or perhaps another country. Rather than assuming the United States Army could defend the people, they also wanted the people to defend themselves as well. Sure our armed forces is about 1.4 million right now, but if you factor in the 50 or so million Americans with guns, then it makes invading the U.S. that much more difficult. Its unlikely it would happen now, but there was a chance of it happening back then. Our army was small back then and the country was young. Allowing the people to bear arms ensured the U.S. would have one of the worlds largest armies. Can`t wait to hear how pissed everyone will get from this!
  3. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    31787 posts
    March 23, 2013 at 6:11 pm
    The disinformation campaign continues... and @SmagBoy1 is carrying the "false flag"!
  4. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36208 posts
    March 23, 2013 at 6:16 pm

    Liberal propaganda.
    Every state had a militia, and still does. Not just the south. Those militias are what made up the armies in the War of Independence.
  5. Profile photo of turdburglar
    turdburglar Male 30-39
    4718 posts
    March 23, 2013 at 6:23 pm

    All those quotes, but where are the sources? Author must have a time machine...and telepathy.

    Who wrote this, Bill S. Preston Esquire?

    This seems like made up bull poo. I guess if you are too stupid to form a logical argument it is easier to make s#it up.
  6. Profile photo of markust123
    markust123 Male 40-49
    3876 posts
    March 23, 2013 at 6:24 pm
    Trusting a web site with "truth" in its name is like trusting a diner that has to put up a sign that says "Good food". You`re going to leave both a little worse than you arrived.
  7. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10722 posts
    March 23, 2013 at 6:38 pm
    So what? How would eliminating the second get rid of the police state? If anything it would give the state more power by limiting everyone`s rights even further. Government would have to use force to keep weapons out of their own citizens` hands.
  8. Profile photo of fancythat
    fancythat Male 30-39
    1950 posts
    March 23, 2013 at 7:06 pm
    Well, I admit - I only read the headline, but that sure does explain all the white trash hicks here in South Carolina. Man, I can`t wait to leave this poohole of a state and go home.
  9. Profile photo of monsterzero
    monsterzero Male 40-49
    353 posts
    March 23, 2013 at 7:35 pm
    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
    WAIT! HOLD ON! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
    "We just got the sh*t kicked out of us by an oppressive tyrannical government, and by some miracle and with the help of the French we actually beat the superpower of our time. Hey! let`s stay armed so we can keep slaves!"
    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
  10. Profile photo of whodat6484
    whodat6484 Male 30-39
    3907 posts
    March 23, 2013 at 7:38 pm
    Everyone else already said what I thought about the article.

    It`s easy to put a spin on anything in order use it as "proof" to support whatever your argument may be. Let`s use the most abundant compound on Earth`s surface, water (H2O), as an example. What "facts" can we list about water to make it sound bad?

  11. Profile photo of RytWing
    RytWing Male 30-39
    316 posts
    March 23, 2013 at 7:43 pm
    Lets assume why it was written and forget what it actually says...THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
  12. Profile photo of DrProfessor
    DrProfessor Male 18-29
    3894 posts
    March 23, 2013 at 7:56 pm
    *sigh* this stance has been presented as a motivation for literally every aspect of the US constitution and every US political decision leading up to the Civil War. Sure, they probably thought about it. Sure, they also liked having guns around in the event of a slave insurrection.

    This was not the only reason. It is rarely ever the only reason. Or even the main one. It`s just a sensationalist way to interpret it.
  13. Profile photo of AvatarJohn
    AvatarJohn Male 30-39
    1059 posts
    March 23, 2013 at 7:57 pm
    Perhaps unsurprisingly to any thinking person who rightly recognizes the insane absurdity of the above article, gun control laws actually do have their roots in racism. It`s easy to find numerous articles supporting this well-known fact: Googled it.
  14. Profile photo of DromEd
    DromEd Male 40-49
    1850 posts
    March 23, 2013 at 7:57 pm
    Smagboy fails again.
  15. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    31787 posts
    March 23, 2013 at 8:02 pm
    So, EVERY IABer (except @SmagBoy) agrees that this is crap?

    @turdy, mark the calendar! This is the THIRD time all of IAB has agreed on something! (LOLZ!)

    Typical. Liberal. Revisionism. Period.
  16. Profile photo of turdburglar
    turdburglar Male 30-39
    4718 posts
    March 23, 2013 at 8:38 pm

    5cats - the night is young....
  17. Profile photo of OldOllie
    OldOllie Male 60-69
    15844 posts
    March 23, 2013 at 8:42 pm
    I guess that explains why the government went to war to END slavery. No...wait...what?
  18. Profile photo of AutieDaddy
    AutieDaddy Male 40-49
    6 posts
    March 23, 2013 at 9:29 pm
    While I completely disagree with the idea that the Second Amendment was only for militia I think this article I am posting here goes a long way in disproving the slavery connection... article
  19. Profile photo of whodat6484
    whodat6484 Male 30-39
    3907 posts
    March 23, 2013 at 9:55 pm
    This article reminded me of this little gem that was aired on CNN where the Chairman of "Gun Appreciation Day" actually f*cking said that if African Americans had guns they probably wouldn`t have been slaves!

    My point being, there are idiots who shouldn`t be allowed to talk on both sides of the argument because all they do is make their respective side look f*cking stupid!
  20. Profile photo of thefatviking
    thefatviking Male 18-29
    202 posts
    March 23, 2013 at 9:59 pm
    Utter bullpoo.
  21. Profile photo of Magentab0b
    Magentab0b Female 30-39
    1467 posts
    March 23, 2013 at 10:10 pm
    I`m going to put on my fifties inspired, cat-eye shaped, rhinestone embellished, rose colored reading spectacles and peer over them while saying, "Ya`ll need better snark detection. I believe smagboy1 to be intentionally sharing something funny."

    5cats, I was about to be super offended by the dig at liberals (not that it wasn`t factual just that it was a dig) when I remembered I`m registered as other. Unless you say, "Other." It doesn`t apply to me. And I know you were trying to offend me personally. I just know it.
  22. Profile photo of carmium
    carmium Female 50-59
    6381 posts
    March 23, 2013 at 10:45 pm
    Magentabob: What does it mean to be a "registered" republican or democrat? I always thought that sounded so strange, as if you HAD to vote one way because you once signed up or something. In Canada, you can be a member of a party and get called up to volunteer at election time - is that the same thing?
  23. Profile photo of Scuzoid
    Scuzoid Male 30-39
    1268 posts
    March 23, 2013 at 10:57 pm
    @carmium, for the most part, registering one way or the other means you`re allowed to vote in the primary to decide which candidate will run in the general election. In the general, you can still vote however you please, but in the primary (depends on the state and seat the official is running for) if you`re registered republican, you normally can`t vote to decide which exact democrat will be running against your republican nominee.
  24. Profile photo of turdburglar
    turdburglar Male 30-39
    4718 posts
    March 23, 2013 at 10:59 pm

    Everyone knows the right to sell and own black people, and the right to sell and own guns are completely separate.

    One is supported by the NRA.
    The other is supported by the NBA.
  25. Profile photo of Scuzoid
    Scuzoid Male 30-39
    1268 posts
    March 23, 2013 at 11:00 pm
    To simplify, if every democrat in the US were allowed to vote Michelle Bachman as the Republican candidate for the presidency, chances are a lot would. Making the Obama V Romney blowout nothing compared to what would`ve been the Obama V Bachman massacre.
  26. Profile photo of turdburglar
    turdburglar Male 30-39
    4718 posts
    March 23, 2013 at 11:17 pm

    @carminum @ scuzoid -
    Scuzoid is right about the presidential primary. While voting in the presidential primary, there are other elected officials running for their respective offices on the same ballot. In my state (for a while...they changed it now) if you voted democrat for the prez, you could not vote for any republican on that ballot. Even though there were different offices up for election.

    Simply...If you wanted a democratic president, you also had to vote democratic representatives for all offices on the ballot.

    The 2 party system is (and has been) the biggest problem with the American government.
  27. Profile photo of spanz
    spanz Male 50-59
    833 posts
    March 24, 2013 at 12:21 am
    the article is ridiculous. There are probably 50 or so good reasons for the 2nd amendment. My favorite is to make sure the US Government has something to fear about if they take over the individua`s constitutional rights. And of course today this is one of the few rights that blacks/jews/gays, etc have in their pocket to protect themselves AGAINST bigots....their constitutional right to bear arms in their own protection!!!
  28. Profile photo of SmagBoy1
    SmagBoy1 Male 40-49
    4432 posts
    March 24, 2013 at 2:50 am
    So, there`s no truth to this article? Nothing that can be verified? Nothing in it that speaks to any reality of the time whatsoever?

    Okay, hey, that`s fine guys. If nothing else, I brought IAB together in unanimously condemning it. But, fact is, if you bother with history at all, there`s plenty in there to consider. I don`t think anyone said it was the ONLY reason, but that it was a significant driver, to me, isn`t even really up for debate. But, as I said, that`s cool. Sometimes one takes tomatoes to the face when trying to have a discussion. I`ll take the tomatoes this time. :-)
  29. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    March 24, 2013 at 4:31 am
    This article is complete hogwash. Especially when it is a known fact that English troops were searching people`s homes, without warrants, seizing their guns, boarding themselves in private homes and taking whatever provisions and loot that they could. The English also stifled preachers and destroyed the presses of those people that dared talk against King George.

    Thus the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th amendments were specifically written to make sure those events wouldn`t ever happen again.
  30. Profile photo of SmagBoy1
    SmagBoy1 Male 40-49
    4432 posts
    March 24, 2013 at 4:47 am
    Yep, it was all about the Brits. 100%. No other political forces at work there. No deals to ensure ratification. Okay. Hey, if 5th grade history works for everyone, fine.

    I`m not saying this was the only thing at work, or that this article is the 100%, definitive truth, but, to dismiss every bit as hogwash without even bothering to learn about the political forces at work is to ignore most of history. I guess the civil war was 100% about slavery, too?
  31. Profile photo of Kain1
    Kain1 Male 18-29
    1473 posts
    March 24, 2013 at 6:46 am
    lol at the last paragraph. That one took me a little by surprise.

    And yes, this is utter bullpoo. The article AutieDaddy posted in the comments below shows that very nicely..
  32. Profile photo of cteas
    cteas Male 30-39
    12 posts
    March 24, 2013 at 7:00 am
    This article is retarded. Even anti-gunners are calling this one bullsh@!. It won`t let me post a link here, but just google "2nd amendment slave militia". Every scholar is call B.S.!
  33. Profile photo of Keggar
    Keggar Male 50-59
    54 posts
    March 24, 2013 at 7:11 am
    What sewer sludge will the left dredge up and place on paper next? They`d say anything to pull the wool over the low information/poorly educated folk.
  34. Profile photo of randomxnp
    randomxnp Male 30-39
    1293 posts
    March 24, 2013 at 8:14 am
    This is what the Soviets called "forward defence" - attack your enemy to defend against his anticipated attack. The attack anticipated is of course the fact (as opposed to the myth stirred up here) that gun control started as a way of protecting KKK (the militant wing of the Democrat Party, remember) and their allies as they lynched and otherwise persecuted the recently-freed slaves.
  35. Profile photo of chalket
    chalket Male 50-59
    2712 posts
    March 24, 2013 at 9:30 am
    I`m with you, Smagboy. Unlike Neo-con News, Thom Hartmann does not go off half-cocked spewing opinion, his reporting is well researched and documented. Don`t just yell "Bullpoo!" Check his citations and sources, show us how it is historically inaccurate. Not one of you laughing hyenas have actually rebutted one single fact or quote in his article. All you have is baseless derision. Screw you and your brain-dead, brain-washed, knee-jerk inability to consider that you might possibly be slightly wrong about a single thing in this world. A mind is like a parachute, it must be open to properly function, and you are in free-fall.
  36. Profile photo of dm2754
    dm2754 Male 40-49
    3284 posts
    March 24, 2013 at 9:41 am
    UtahTwisted>
    said it best, when he said

    facts are not created by quotes. They are backed up with citations.
  37. Profile photo of whodat6484
    whodat6484 Male 30-39
    3907 posts
    March 24, 2013 at 10:21 am
    "I don`t think anyone said it was the ONLY reason..."

    You`re joking, right? The headline/title is "The Second Amendment was Ratified to Preserve Slavery."

    The first sentence is, "The real reason the Second Amendment was ratified, and why it says "State" instead of "Country" (the Framers knew the difference - see the 10th Amendment), was to preserve the slave patrol militias in the southern states, which was necessary to get Virginia`s vote."

    The entire article was written about the link between local militia`s and slavery. Nowhere did the author even hint at saying something like, "This is just one of many pieces to the puzzle."

  38. Profile photo of skullgrin
    skullgrin Male 18-29
    937 posts
    March 24, 2013 at 11:43 am
    if you read the writings of john adams it is very clear that the second amendment is in fact meant for civilians to keep arms in case the government tried to over step their boundaries.
  39. Profile photo of Kain1
    Kain1 Male 18-29
    1473 posts
    March 24, 2013 at 11:57 am
    @chalket: Read this article. Courtesy of AutieDaddy.
  40. Profile photo of SmagBoy1
    SmagBoy1 Male 40-49
    4432 posts
    March 24, 2013 at 12:32 pm
    whodat6484, did you READ the article? Or even skim it? The only reason something was ratified (e.g. was able to get enough votes) does NOT mean that`s the only reason behind something being written. For example, if someone wrote an amendment to define marriage as between a man and woman, do you think any Democrats would sign it? Of course they would. Would all of them do it for religious reasons only? No. Religion is probably the reason it`d be ratified, because the most significant interest behind it, but other people might do it for political expediency, like, to get a vote on their own pet project, or, to get re-elected next time, or, to get some campaign finances, etc. The reason something was ratified is almost NEVER the ONLY reason something is written.
  41. Profile photo of MrPeabody
    MrPeabody Male 30-39
    1920 posts
    March 24, 2013 at 12:33 pm
    It seems that most people do not realize that many of the provisions of the Bill of Rights were based on the English Bill of Rights that were written nearly 100 years prior, and of which the founding fathers were well aware of. The second amendment has its roots in the English Bill of Rights where grievances against King James II were laid out: "By causing several good subjects being Protestants to be disarmed at the same time when papists were both armed and employed contrary to law;"
    and later where their rights were asserted:

    "...for the vindicating and asserting their ancient rights and liberties declare:...

    That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;"

    Neither the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights were made up as they went, there was much historical precedent and thought that went into their content.
  42. Profile photo of SmagBoy1
    SmagBoy1 Male 40-49
    4432 posts
    March 24, 2013 at 1:22 pm
    MrPeabody, the English Bill of Rights makes no mention of guns or the right to bear arms of any sort. Also, our Bill of Rights is based more closely on the influences of the French and the general philosophies of the Enlightenment than the British version, which was much more about specifics of the King and religion.
  43. Profile photo of whodat6484
    whodat6484 Male 30-39
    3907 posts
    March 24, 2013 at 1:26 pm
    "did you READ the article? Or even skim it? The only reason something was ratified (e.g. was able to get enough votes) does NOT mean that`s the only reason behind something being written."

    Yes, I did read it, but it took a long time because I had to take a few breaks due to fits of laughter. The way the article is written, as most articles on these types of "truth" websites are, only focus on one detail, militia`s/slavery in this case. The majority of retards who frequent these websites read this and are then convinced that the ONLY reason the 2nd Amendment was ratified was so that people could keep their slaves in line because that`s all the article says.
  44. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10722 posts
    March 24, 2013 at 3:52 pm
    @SmagBoy

    Sorry sir but you`re wrong.
    Here`s the original text
    See "disarming protestants" and "subjects arms".
  45. Profile photo of MrPeabody
    MrPeabody Male 30-39
    1920 posts
    March 24, 2013 at 5:31 pm
    @smagboy

    MrPeabody, the English Bill of Rights makes no mention of guns or the right to bear arms of any sort.

    I quoted it for you. You couldn`t be more wrong. The only thing you said correctly was that it does not mention guns. See Cajun`s link below for the full text. You might just find that it addresses such things as freedom of speech, the right to petition government, cruel and unusual punishment etc. I wonder where I have seen these subjects before?
  46. Profile photo of MrPeabody
    MrPeabody Male 30-39
    1920 posts
    March 24, 2013 at 5:54 pm
    @smagboy
    "our Bill of Rights is based more closely on the influences of the French and the general philosophies of the Enlightenment"

    That`s why I said "many of the provisions of the Bill of Rights were based on the English Bill of Rights". I did not say all.

    I also said:
    "there was much historical precedent and thought that went into their content." With just 1000 there is not enough room to cover every detail.

    But as to the Second Amendment which is the subject of this post, there is a most definite parallel in the English Bill of rights. Even the SCOTUS has referenced it when discussing the right of individuals to bear arms.
    Influence of the English Bill of Rights of 1689
  47. Profile photo of insane_ai
    insane_ai Male 30-39
    740 posts
    March 24, 2013 at 6:26 pm
    More gun grabber bull-poo.

  48. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    March 25, 2013 at 12:50 am
    You might just find that it addresses such things as freedom of speech, the right to petition government, cruel and unusual punishment etc. I wonder where I have seen these subjects before?

    The Magna Carta (1215, England)? That`s another large influence on the USA Bill of Rights. I don`t recall it mentioning freedom of speech, but the right to petition and the right to freedom from cruel and unusual punishment is in there (along with freedom from arrest without due cause, right to a fair trial by jury, etc).
  49. Profile photo of abrxax
    abrxax Male 18-29
    73 posts
    March 25, 2013 at 6:48 am
    Interesting spin. So the pro-gun side says that gun control has racist roots. (In the south, yes.) Now the anti-gun lobby says the 2nd amendment has racist roots. I call bullpoo.
  50. Profile photo of MrPeabody
    MrPeabody Male 30-39
    1920 posts
    March 25, 2013 at 12:41 pm
    @Angilion

    "The Magna Carta (1215, England)?"

    Not sure if you are asking a question about what we are referring to or questioning the date, But the English Bill of Rights of 1689 says:

    That the Freedome of Speech and Debates or Proceedings in Parlyament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any Court or Place out of Parlyament.
  51. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    March 25, 2013 at 1:34 pm
    Not sure if you are asking a question about what we are referring to or questioning the date

    Neither. I was suggesting a possible answer to your question, the question I quoted when replying to it:

    I wonder where I have seen these subjects before?

    Although strictly speaking that`s not a question (it`s a statement that you are wondering about it), you phrased it as one (the question mark) so I took it as one.

    There are other possible sources, but I was suggesting the Magna Carta as the one that you are most likely to have seen.
  52. Profile photo of 2000teg430
    2000teg430 Male 18-29
    2 posts
    March 25, 2013 at 9:03 pm
    NRA Created To Protect Free Slaves
  53. Profile photo of MrPeabody
    MrPeabody Male 30-39
    1920 posts
    March 26, 2013 at 1:47 am
    There are other possible sources, but I was suggesting the Magna Carta as the one that you are most likely to have seen.

    Gotcha, you are correct, but I was actually referring to our Constitution and the Bill of Rights as SmagBoy was trying to say that the English bill of rights did not have much influence on them. But all of the things I listed can be found in both documents with direct parallels.

    I do realize that the founding fathers of course did draw from many sources, not just the English Bill or Rights when drafting these documents, and were well versed in law, philosophy and religious thought. Which was my point from the beginning, that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were not haphazardly put together, nor where they pandering to the views of certain interests.

Leave a Reply