Skip to main content

View Diary: To my gun owning neighbor and to every gun enthusiast in the United States of America - (333 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I could write a thesis on the subject. Suffice it (6+ / 0-)

    to say that it can be well proven in multiple ways, historically, on what the founders meant when they wrote the 2A and the historical precedence that followed.

      No one banned guns immediately after the Bill of Rights was enacted. No one passed any laws that said only militia could own them after the Bill of Rights was created.  The founders didn't die the day after the Bill of Rights was written and leave it all up to third party interpretation from that moment on.  If the intent had been for only militia to own guns....that's exactly what would have happened as soon as the Bill of Rights was law of the land....however, as it was, it never happened.

    •  Yes, the Southern States needed assurance (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Miggles, RUNDOWN

      that when they joined the Federal Union, no Nawthan State or Federal entity was going to take away their ability to keep slaves in bondage. In fact, the whole topic of slavery as a word, a concept, a fact at all was kept out of the document, and to a large extent, the press, because it was the ONE issue which could have prevented the Union from the start. It was the 900 pound rhino in the room, and they finessed it very well. The Grand Bargain:  Let them keep their weapons and militias for slave chasing, and we will all get along, for a while. Its time we understand it is the last remnant of oppression in the original document, and read the ENTIRE SECOND AMENDMENT.

      Figures don't lie, but liars do figure-Mark Twain

      by OregonOak on Sun Apr 21, 2013 at 03:46:13 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  If I recall, wasn't the 2nd amendment emplaced to (0+ / 0-)

        ensure there'd be a military force for the Federal government to rely upon to enforce its laws? Wasn't it in response to the Whiskey Rebellion which George Washington put down through the use of militia troops because the infant USA lacked a standing army?

        It is particularly ironic that the 2nd Amendment was thus put in place to ensure that the federal government would be able to put down anti-government extremists, isn't it?

        "Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens," -Friedrich Schiller "Against Stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in Vain"

        by pengiep on Sun Apr 21, 2013 at 07:38:24 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  This has been the "taught" idea so far.. (0+ / 0-)

          in schools and universities. It was mentioned as a justification for the Second Amendment, yet it was hardly mentioned at all that the south had extensive militia membership whose jobs were primarily to hunt escaped slaves. Their arms were considered part and parcel of their work.

          This remains an area needing scholarship, yet the existence of local and state militia who were self-armed is not disputed, nor is it disputed that their primary function was slave catching and suppressing slave rebellion.

          It is no accident that the rights of gun owners are most stridently defended south of the Mason-Dixon line, as the "tradition" of ownership is the strongest there.

          Figures don't lie, but liars do figure-Mark Twain

          by OregonOak on Sun Apr 21, 2013 at 09:08:44 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (151)
  • Community (71)
  • Baltimore (68)
  • Bernie Sanders (49)
  • Freddie Gray (38)
  • Civil Rights (38)
  • Elections (28)
  • Hillary Clinton (27)
  • Culture (24)
  • Racism (23)
  • Labor (20)
  • Education (20)
  • Law (19)
  • Rescued (19)
  • Economy (19)
  • Media (19)
  • Science (16)
  • 2016 (15)
  • Politics (15)
  • Barack Obama (14)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site