Re: The Racist Reality of Gun Control from MSN!

26
lurker wrote: Tue Jul 20, 2021 11:12 am if i learned anything at all from history grad school before they kicked me out for taking too long (it was my own fault, i kept taking more classes. thesis? what thesis?), it was this: "history is multicausal". in other words, people do things for a multitude of reasons, nearly as many reasons as there are people.
ABSOLUTELY!!! There are a gazillion reasons, but there is one very specific reason people in the South wanted the 2nd. They had by far the most to lose from something like a gun ban.
“I think there’s a right-wing conspiracy to promote the idea of a left-wing conspiracy”

Re: The Racist Reality of Gun Control from MSN!

27
sikacz wrote: Tue Jul 20, 2021 11:43 am The civil war came a lot later than the formation of the bill of rights. The north marching on the south had nothing to do with the initial reasons for the second. It doesn’t mean the second wasn’t later used to subjugate people, it was.
Then what is Madison talking about in Federalist 46? Read more US history, the South was worried about the North's population advantage, and anti-slavery views from DAY ONE.

The 2nd Amendment and codifying militias was all about keeping power out of a central government. Ask yourself why southern politicians were so adamant about keeping power out of the central government that was controlled by the north? One of the recurring themes of the 2nd Amendment is to "prevent federal tyranny". People in the North weren't much worried about such things, they were worried about all the other issues you would want a 2nd Amendment for. But people in the South were suspicious of the North on DAY ONE of the new union.

The 2nd Amendment isn't ONLY about slavery, but you're fooling yourself if you think it wasn't the most important issue to Southerners.
“I think there’s a right-wing conspiracy to promote the idea of a left-wing conspiracy”

Re: The Racist Reality of Gun Control from MSN!

28
FrontSight wrote: Tue Jul 20, 2021 12:15 pm
sikacz wrote: Tue Jul 20, 2021 11:43 am The civil war came a lot later than the formation of the bill of rights. The north marching on the south had nothing to do with the initial reasons for the second. It doesn’t mean the second wasn’t later used to subjugate people, it was.
Then what is Madison talking about in Federalist 46? Read more US history, the South was worried about the North's population advantage, and anti-slavery views from DAY ONE.

The 2nd Amendment and codifying militias was all about keeping power out of a central government. Ask yourself why southern politicians were so adamant about keeping power out of the central government that was controlled by the north? One of the recurring themes of the 2nd Amendment is to "prevent federal tyranny". People in the North weren't much worried about such things, they were worried about all the other issues you would want a 2nd Amendment for. But people in the South were suspicious of the North on DAY ONE of the new union.

The 2nd Amendment isn't ONLY about slavery, but you're fooling yourself if you think it wasn't the most important issue to Southerners.
It’s not in there no matter how hard you are trying to insist. The premise is not framed how you are insisting. It doesn’t mean it was not later used that way. Federalist 46 was very specific in what it considered a threat as I noted above. It was the misuse of a standing army. It was a similar warning to Eisenhower’s military industrial complex. I can’t see your argument.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Re: The Racist Reality of Gun Control from MSN!

29
Thanks for posting this! I'm definitely part of the political left but I'm sick of all the anti-gun rhetoric I hear from them. Not only is gun control racist but I'm also sick of the mainstream left painting gun owners as lunatics. I grew up in a family of working class rednecks so I'm sure I think a lot differently than your average liberal/leftist. It's nice to have the LGC because I don't fit in with my redneck family nor do I fit in with all the educated liberals/leftists I know.

Re: The Racist Reality of Gun Control from MSN!

30
Well I guess we just disagree...seems pretty obvious what Federalist 46 is talking about in light of so much other history around the formation of the Constitution. Its consistent with other laws that forbade selling arms to blacks and Indians.

I'm not saying it was THE reason, but it was a HUGE reason the South wanted it.
“I think there’s a right-wing conspiracy to promote the idea of a left-wing conspiracy”

Re: The Racist Reality of Gun Control from MSN!

33
featureless wrote: Tue Jul 20, 2021 1:34 pm
FrontSight wrote: Tue Jul 20, 2021 12:15 pm The 2nd Amendment isn't ONLY about slavery, but you're fooling yourself if you think it wasn't the most important issue to Southerners.
That can coexist with other reasons for the 2nd. But it hardly makes that the purpose of the 2nd, as antis would have us believe.

I agree, the states had many reasons for supporting 2A and the other 9 amendments. I have no doubt slavery was a major one for VA, NC, SC and GA.

If I recall the history correctly, the proposed US Constitution was different from the Articles of Confederation, the Articles had a weak central government and the Constitution a strong one. States were reluctant to ratify the Constitution so Madison wrote the first 10 amendments, the Bill of Rights to check the power of the new federal government and through later legal decisions they check not only federal power but the power of the states.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: The Racist Reality of Gun Control from MSN!

34
It remains in my mind (typically murky and often confused) that the 2nd includes militia and the right to keep and bear arms primarily because we'd just fought a fucking revolutionary war. Tangentially related to the economic disgust that was slavery, perhaps, as was the war. But primarily due to the desire to be able to preserve a new nation without a standing military. But I suck at history, so... :)

Re: The Racist Reality of Gun Control from MSN!

35
A motivated writer can support any thesis. That does not make the thesis true. It's just supported. Sometimes readers are thereby persuaded.

Guns can be used, and certainly have been used, to dominate others. Naturally, this is one reason people fear guns. It's visceral.

These are the challenges we face as a club that supports all the shooting sports. People fear guns, fear us, fear our agenda. I think the only way to break that fear is the .22 target pistol in a traveling herd of shooters. They pull into a town and set up and give free shooting lessons. It's a go fund me thing. Spread the gospel.

No American alive today owned slaves, were slaves, nor supported slavery. I don't think it fertile to bash folks with slavery. It does taint the gun debate, though. Tough times.

CDFingers
Crazy cat peekin' through a lace bandana
like a one-eyed Cheshire, like a diamond-eyed Jack

Re: The Racist Reality of Gun Control from MSN!

36
I haven't seen anyone here who has it "wrong"... As previously stated, the issue is multi-faceted and complex. There are a lot of reasons, and for the sake of intellectual honesty I won't dismiss any of them. Just like the 1st Amendment, there are a pile of reasons for that one as well; all of them valid.
“I think there’s a right-wing conspiracy to promote the idea of a left-wing conspiracy”

Re: The Racist Reality of Gun Control from MSN!

39
Carl T Bogus in his law journal article and Carol Anderson in her book definitely sought evidence to support their opinions about the origins of the Second Amendment. Bogus' law journal article was from the late 1990s and there were other articles about the same time arguing the same thing. Personally I don't put law professors with a professional doctorate (JD) on the same level as professors with PhDs in any subject, they are not the same. Anderson isn't the first historian with questionable sources, Stephan Ambrose, Doris Kearns Goodwin and others have also been criticized for sketchy sources.

Was racism the reason for 2A, that has not been fully proven. Did gun ownership in much later decades at least in the South become overly racist, there is evidence for it.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: The Racist Reality of Gun Control from MSN!

40
FrontSight wrote: Tue Jul 20, 2021 10:56 am
NegativeApproach wrote: Tue Jul 20, 2021 6:24 am
FrontSight wrote: Mon Jul 19, 2021 4:17 pm Slavery was the primary reason for the 2nd Amendment; read Federalist 46. From day one, the South was worried the North would invade the South to put an end to slavery. This is why the South insisted on the 2nd Amendment.
The other scenario was... If the North voted to disarm the South, how can they defend themselves from slaves?

There are many other reasons for the 2nd Amendment, but remember...It wasn't the North who demanded it, it was the South.
I just read Federalist 46 at your behest, and I'm not getting the takeaway from it that slavery was the primary reason for the 2nd amendment from it in any way, shape, or form.

In fact, I'm seeing no mention of slavery at all in there. Could you clarify your assertion? I'm genuinely asking.
Why else would the north march on the South at that time in history?

"Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops."

What are they talking about here, and more importantly; why?
Uhh... maybe the revolutionary war that had just happened, and the desire for a weak decentralized government?


Again, I'm seeing 0 mention of slavery or even "the north marching on the south".

Basically, that's a REAL stretch of logic to claim this is some sort of "proof" that the 2A was created specifically to suppress slave rebellions. If that was the case, you'd see the intent VERY clearly, and it's simply not here. There are lots of people telling you that, but if you don't want to accept it, that's up to you.

Re: The Racist Reality of Gun Control from MSN!

41
FrontSight wrote: Tue Jul 20, 2021 12:09 pm
lurker wrote: Tue Jul 20, 2021 11:12 am if i learned anything at all from history grad school before they kicked me out for taking too long (it was my own fault, i kept taking more classes. thesis? what thesis?), it was this: "history is multicausal". in other words, people do things for a multitude of reasons, nearly as many reasons as there are people.
ABSOLUTELY!!! There are a gazillion reasons, but there is one very specific reason people in the South wanted the 2nd. They had by far the most to lose from something like a gun ban.
Show the receipts.

Re: The Racist Reality of Gun Control from MSN!

42
highdesert wrote: Wed Jul 21, 2021 12:14 pm Carl T Bogus in his law journal article and Carol Anderson in her book definitely sought evidence to support their opinions about the origins of the Second Amendment. Bogus' law journal article was from the late 1990s and there were other articles about the same time arguing the same thing. Personally I don't put law professors with a professional doctorate (JD) on the same level as professors with PhDs in any subject, they are not the same. Anderson isn't the first historian with questionable sources, Stephan Ambrose, Doris Kearns Goodwin and others have also been criticized for sketchy sources.

Was racism the reason for 2A, that has not been fully proven. Did gun ownership in much later decades at least in the South become overly racist, there is evidence for it.
The assumption in the south (and north for sure, and the colonies of Britain and the Netherlands, and many other places at the time.... was that anyone non-white was not afforded the same rights as everyone else. That goes for the entire bill of rights.

I could also argue that the 1st amendment was designed to oppress slaves as well as slaves were not allowed to speak freely or assemble, nor engage in the free practice of religion.

it would be no more true than this argument though.

The creation of the concept of race was intentional and deliberate to support the slave trade... but there were plenty of non-black slaves in the US and especially overseas as well. The term slave comes from the word Slav, which is my people. I've done a bit of reading on the background and creation of the slave trade, and while of course slave owners didn't want their "property" armed, I have never seen any evidence that the 2nd amendment was created with the primary (or even secondary or tertiary) reason to prevent slave revolts. I'm sure it was on the minds of some people who owned slaves, no doubt. But so was how to use the Christian religion to control slaves. So was systemic rape. So was a lot of other fucked up things...

If your "property" which is seen as less than human in your eyes isn't important enough for any rights, why wouldn't you state clearly if your intent for the 2nd amendment was to prevent slave revolts? There wasn't any nuance to this at the time... slaves were not people. They were less than. The racism of 1776 is not like the racism of 2021. There was no nuance to it then. It was out in the open, clear, and stated unequivocally.

Re: The Racist Reality of Gun Control from MSN!

45
CDFingers wrote: Tue Jul 20, 2021 6:31 pm A motivated writer can support any thesis. That does not make the thesis true. It's just supported. Sometimes readers are thereby persuaded.

Guns can be used, and certainly have been used, to dominate others. Naturally, this is one reason people fear guns. It's visceral.
QFT.

So, a thing. Shortly after the shiny new Constitution got ratified and all, there was a fun little rebellion out Pennsylvania-ways. You might've heard of it. It involved whiskey. Wait, let me go get a dram. Okay. So. Discontented yokels raise up arms against their new federal government over taxes they don't like, because dude, didn't we just fight a whole goddamn war over this? Anyways, the former commander of the Continental Army and first elected President of the United States of America, one General Geo. Washington - you might've heard of him - raised up the militias and marched into central PA with more men than he'd had at Valley Forge.

Thing is, the Bill of RIghts had already been ratified by this point.

Now, a lot of the rights we take for granted weren't necessarily meant for us. They were written into law under the assumption that they applied only to white men of English descent who happened to own property - but the laws weren't written as racist or elitist as the culture was at the time. So when people started to look at the text of the law in detail, and realized that maybe it could just possibly be applied to freed Black men, or for heaven's sake women - who retained the right to vote in New Jersey into the 19th Century before men stripped it away! - well, the Republic we aspire to is the product of literal interpretation of carelessly written laws that assumed certain levels of privilege that were not explicitly enshrined.

Now, down South, those privileges were maybe a little more enshriny. But if you ever want your hair raised, read up on New York's slave rebellions in the colonial period. There ain't a damn thing about the people we used to be as a country what're worth defending on moral grounds. It's the ideal that we could be better, we should be better, that we all stand for. You know, progressive-like.

Re: The Racist Reality of Gun Control from MSN!

46
wings wrote: Thu Jul 22, 2021 9:38 pm
CDFingers wrote: Tue Jul 20, 2021 6:31 pm A motivated writer can support any thesis. That does not make the thesis true. It's just supported. Sometimes readers are thereby persuaded.

Guns can be used, and certainly have been used, to dominate others. Naturally, this is one reason people fear guns. It's visceral.
QFT.

So, a thing. Shortly after the shiny new Constitution got ratified and all, there was a fun little rebellion out Pennsylvania-ways. You might've heard of it. It involved whiskey. Wait, let me go get a dram. Okay. So. Discontented yokels raise up arms against their new federal government over taxes they don't like, because dude, didn't we just fight a whole goddamn war over this? Anyways, the former commander of the Continental Army and first elected President of the United States of America, one General Geo. Washington - you might've heard of him - raised up the militias and marched into central PA with more men than he'd had at Valley Forge.

Thing is, the Bill of RIghts had already been ratified by this point.

Now, a lot of the rights we take for granted weren't necessarily meant for us. They were written into law under the assumption that they applied only to white men of English descent who happened to own property - but the laws weren't written as racist or elitist as the culture was at the time. So when people started to look at the text of the law in detail, and realized that maybe it could just possibly be applied to freed Black men, or for heaven's sake women - who retained the right to vote in New Jersey into the 19th Century before men stripped it away! - well, the Republic we aspire to is the product of literal interpretation of carelessly written laws that assumed certain levels of privilege that were not explicitly enshrined.

Now, down South, those privileges were maybe a little more enshriny. But if you ever want your hair raised, read up on New York's slave rebellions in the colonial period. There ain't a damn thing about the people we used to be as a country what're worth defending on moral grounds. It's the ideal that we could be better, we should be better, that we all stand for. You know, progressive-like.
This.

Re: The Racist Reality of Gun Control from MSN!

47
Two things to remember about the time and history the second amendment was written.

Number 1- The authors didn't want a standing army, but also having one they wanted it to be a weak one that relied on the citizen militias to be the bulk of the army.

Number 2- The authors also remember what happen to the Scots. after the battle of Culloden, April 1746, when the Hanoverian Army under Lord Cumberland defeated the Scots and occupied Scotland's Highlands. Afterward the the defeat laws were proclaimed in Scotland that no Scottish citizen could own or have in their possession any weapon of war including pistols, rifles, swords, pikes, war axes, spears etc. At the same time the occupation army under Cumberland raided, raped and ravished the country of food and anything of any value. Many of the followers of Prince Charles were imprisoned and or transported to mainly the southern colonies in North America as indentured servants. Other more wealthy Scots were able to escape and came to the southern colonies and established plantations.

We need to remember the US Constitutional Convention was just forty-one years after the Battle of Culloden and many people were still alive, that survived the battle and the aftermath. They also remember the War for Independence we had just fought and won. So they had a reason to support the Second Amendment.

As for Slavery there had already been slave unrest and uprising in other parts the new world that required military intervention. So there always was the threat that it could happen here.
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.-Huxley
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis Brandeis,

Re: The Racist Reality of Gun Control from MSN!

48
Queen Anne was the last of the Stuart monarchs and when she died (none of her 14 children had survived), the British throne passed to the House of Hanover in Germany, bypassing other Stuart claimants to the throne because they were not Protestants (Act of Settlement). In 1707 England and Scotland were merged into the United Kingdom and the Scottish National Party is still fighting to make Scotland independent again.

Britain's kings George I, George II, George III, George IV and William IV were also kings of Hanover (Germany), hence Hanoverian troops who didn't speak English or Gaelic (original Scottish language). They were commanded at Culloden by the Duke of Cumberland, son of King George II. After the battle they hunted down and killed the surviving Jacobins who had fought for Prince Charles, the Stuart the claimant to the throne. It was brutal.

Yes Culloden was probably in the minds of American colonists.
Last edited by highdesert on Tue Jul 27, 2021 10:32 pm, edited 2 times in total.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: The Racist Reality of Gun Control from MSN!

49
While it is true that the Founders didn't want a standing army, they certainly wanted a Navy. Plus, they had debts to pay from the War, so they had to protect their commerce.

And while guns make it easier for the armed to dominate the unarmed, we can't forget Unforgiven: "You just shot an unarmed man!"

"He should've armed himself."

Nature is metal.

CDFingers
Crazy cat peekin' through a lace bandana
like a one-eyed Cheshire, like a diamond-eyed Jack

Re: The Racist Reality of Gun Control from MSN!

50
highdesert wrote: Tue Jul 20, 2021 10:20 am
DispositionMatrix wrote: Tue Jul 20, 2021 9:46 am
highdesert wrote: Tue Jul 20, 2021 9:09 am
sikacz wrote: Tue Jul 20, 2021 7:56 am I read the Federalist 46 paper just now as well. It says nothing about slavery and the second. I suspect as noted earlier, later agenda driven individuals have in their own work tried to frame their thoughts as Madison’s. On the whole Madison frames the need for the people to be armed to resist a potential misuse of military power by those controlling a standing army. It’s more of a warning against the military industrial complex.

I too reread #46 and nothing about slavery. Federalist Paper #29 written by Hamilton is another one touted but nothing there either. Madison and Hamilton supported militias, but were suspicious of a national army.
The false claim about Federalist 46 is a common refrain within the disarmament lobby in their efforts to frame the 2A constraint on government's ability to infringe on the RKBA as inherently racist. They've been banking on no one actually reading the document. The real problem for 2A supporters today is this is one of the avenues of attack that has taken root and become a permanent fixture among disarmament enthusiasts in a larger effort to identify firearm ownership with racism. Thus, truth has become irrelevant, taking a back seat to the irresistible temptation to shame prospective firearm purchasers.
That's what gets me the most, when someone declares something racist, homophobic, anti-ethnic... then it's automatically accepted as the truth without evidence and it becomes no longer acceptable to discuss it. Not surprising it's a tactic in the anti-gunners book of deceptions.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^!!!

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests