Thom Hartman: The 2nd Amendment was ratified to help preserve slavery.

[pnwmom]

The first article is by Thom Hartman. The second was from the University of California at Davis Law Review, and it also reports that the primary reason for the 2nd amendment was to preserve slavery.


http://truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery

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. Founders Patrick Henry, George Mason, and James Madison were totally clear on that . . . and we all should be too.

In the beginning, there were the militias. In the South, they were also called the "slave patrols," and they were regulated by the states.

In Georgia, for example, a generation before the American Revolution, laws were passed in 1755 and 1757 that required all plantation owners or their male white employees to be members of the Georgia Militia, and for those armed militia members to make monthly inspections of the quarters of all slaves in the state. The law defined which counties had which armed militias and even required armed militia members to keep a keen eye out for slaves who may be planning uprisings.
As Dr. Carl T. Bogus wrote for the University of California Law Review in 1998, "The Georgia statutes required patrols, under the direction of commissioned militia officers, to examine every plantation each month and authorized them to search 'all Negro Houses for offensive Weapons and Ammunition' and to apprehend and give twenty lashes to any slave found outside plantation grounds."

SNIP

http://www.saf.org/lawreviews/bogus2.htm


This Article challenges the insurrectionist model. The Second Amendment was not enacted to provide a check on government tyranny; rather, it was written to assure the Southern states that Congress would not undermine the slave system by using its newly acquired constitutional authority over the militia to disarm the state militia and thereby destroy the South's principal instrument of slave control. In effect, the Second Amendment supplemented the slavery compromise made at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia and obliquely codified in other constitutional provisions.[52]

[Recursion]

1. I'd be uncomfortable saying there's one single reason for any part of the Constitution and BoR

There were a lot of people with a lot of different interests, and the Constitution and Bill of Rights were in most cases deliberately ambiguous compromises.

[NYC_SKP]

2. I'm not buying it.

The Bill of Rights seems far too carefully crafted for one-tenth of it to have been a giveaway, a bribe, to get Virginia's vote.

I don't doubt that some of this was on their minds, but there is far too much evidence in support of the non-racist motives for a right to bear arms.

I'm confident more than a minor consideration in the full adoption of the Second Amendment.

To the Dr. Carl T. Bogus argument, I'd say correlation is not causation.

The claim is, well, bogus.

[pnwmom]

3. Here is the original, thoroughly researched article from the UC Davis law review article.

http://www.saf.org/lawreviews/bogus2.htm

[NYC_SKP]

4. I never meant to imply that the Bogus article didn't exist.

I meant, rather, to suggest that it's an exercise in supporting a conclusion with an article and subject to legitimate challenge.

Again, correlation is not causation.

That the second was abused by some to enforce slavery is not in question.

That it was included exclusively to perpetrate slavery is absurd and I'm embarrassed for Mr. Hartman.

I was just reading some of the 1,100 odd comments and I'm not alone in this assessment.

[X_Digger]

5. Yeah, Thom regularly makes silly statements about the constitution / law..

He thinks that the concept of judicial review was *created* by Mabry v Madison- because he doesn't like the current makeup of the court, he tries to make the case that the supreme court doesn't actually have the power of judicial review (never mind Federalist 78, etc.)

[antigone382]

55. Well, I was taught in school that judicial review was codified by Marbury vs. Madison...

You may have information to prove that this teaching is not necessarily historically accurate (just as Columbus didn't exactly "discover the Americas), but my understanding is that this is a pretty standard teaching in government classrooms. I do think judicial review is an essential aspect of the balance of powers, so if Hartmann does not I disagree with him; but stating that Marbury vs. Madison was the origin of judicial review is not in itself an outlandish claim.

[X_Digger]

58. First use in a SCOTUS case, yes. Thom believes it was created from whole cloth then.

He sees it as empowering.. how did he put it.. 'a group of unelected kings' or somesuch.

[pnwmom]

10. Before you decide to be embarrassed for Mr. Hartmann, maybe you should read

the actual law review article, which contains a lot of historical background you must not be aware of.

Hartman has nothing to be embarrassed about.

[leveymg]

7. Okay, granted. Another reason for the 2nd was so as not to abridge the Right to shoot Indians.

But, that doesn't nullify the author's claim that slavery interests among the Southern States in maintaining States militias wasn't a major reason for the 2nd.

The real question this raises is to what extent the correlation is also causative. It's not an either-or issue.

[pnwmom]

11. Right. It's not an either-or issue. nt

[calimary]

59. Hey, our side gave away lots of little benefits from the Affordable Care Act in order to win votes

from so-called Blue Dog Dems like Ben Nelson and others. That's one reason some of the good parts of the ACA don't take effect until 2014. "Okay, well, it's GOT to be in there somewhere, but hey - how 'bout if we delay that part you don't like - will that work for you?" That was one way to buy off that asshole Ben Nelson.

[Just Saying]

6. Fascinating.

I bookmarked the entire article so I can read the whole thing.

I think Michael Moore alluded to fear of slaves as a reason for the US's historic gun-love but I don't think he brought up the fear of the government stopping slavery as a reason for the 2nd amendment.

[Igel]

8. Be on the lookout for confirmation bias.

It's an attractive idea. But there's a difference between social sciences and hard sciences and the idea is probably wrong or trivially true.

"Confirmation" of a hypothesis in the hard sciences comes about by having predictions that are quite possibly going to kill off the hypothesis. If it survives the test, it's "confirmed." It's not confirmed, not really, it just failed to be disconfirmed. Litotes can be so annoying. It's majorly annoying and disappointing when you find that evidence that undermines a hypothesis was ignored. It undermines the goal: an observationally consistent and coherent description of surface phenomena that allow reconstruction of what's really happening even if we can't observe it directly. It's a search for truth.

The social sciences rely more on finding evidence to support your theory. It's not always necessary to disprove other theories--just show that they're not all-powerful. It's usually a good idea to make your claim as strong as possible--to say it's all-powerful. It's polite to examine evidence that runs counter to your idea, but it's in no way necessary. Let others poke holes in them--you want the publication and to influence thinking. "Truth" is socially determined; there is no "observational truth." There are merely perspectives.

Bogus' perspective is one of many. It's likely to be not so much false as simply overwhelmingly exaggerated, and intentionally so. Or perhaps he fell for his own confirmation bias.

[branford]

9. Why does it even matter why the amendment was ratified other than historical curiosity?

Although there probably existed numerous reasons and justifications for each amendment in the Bill of Rights, the simple fact of the matter is that the Second Amendment is part of our Constitution and the Supreme Court has confirmed that it is an individual right.

Even if the sole purpose of the Second Amendment was in fact to preserve slavery, which is most certainly not the prevailing view among either conservative or liberal legal historians, it would not change the wording of the Constitution. Although my law schools days are a distant memory, I'm quite certain there is no canon of constitutional interpretation that voids the text of the document because its history and purpose offends our modern sensibilities. Both liberal and conservative justices constantly nibble at the edges of the meaning of constitutional provisions, but never have they failed to give meaning and effect to its express content, particularly because they simply do not like the reasons for its initial passage.

If you wish to amend or repeal any amendment, the Constitution is clear. Either pass an amendment by a vote of two-thirds of both the House of Representatives and the Senate followed by a ratification of three-fourths of the various state legislatures, or convene a Convention called for this purpose by two-thirds of the state legislatures, with any proposed amendment requiring the ratification by three-fourths of the state legislatures.

I would personally not support any attempt to amend the Bill of Rights. To do so would open the remaining amendments to similar challenge and modification. In my opinion, that way lied madness, particularly considering some of the recent offensive civil liberties proposal from Republicans, including on issues such as abortion and voting rights.

However, if you wish to advocate repealing the Second Amendment, particularly on the basis of its alleged connection to the institution of slavery, I wish you the best of luck. Your journey will be long, arduous and most likely futile.

[pnwmom]

12. Why does it matter? It matters if you think it was enacted to fight tyranny --

rather than to enforce it.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2008/03/whitewashing-second-amendment


Dozens of interest groups, from the Pink Pistols to Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, have filed amicus briefs, offering their take on the Second Amendment. But during oral arguments, Justice Anthony Kennedy and his conservative brethren seemed to fully embrace the gun lobby's favorite romantic myth that the founders, inspired by the image of the musket in the hands of a minuteman, wrote the Second Amendment to give Americans the right to take up arms to fight government tyranny. But what the founders really had in mind, according to some constitutional-law scholars, was the musket in the hands of a slave owner. That is, these scholars believe the founders enshrined the right to bear arms in the Constitution in part to enforce tyranny, not fight it.

[leveymg]

15. Haven't we been fighting that somewhat mythical external enemy to preserve the power of the planter

ever since? Not to mention, being made to fight each other from the same purpose?

Jay Gould's pithy phrase, "I can hire half the working class to kill the other half." Says it all.

[branford]

16. The slave insurrection theory of the Second Amendment is an extreme fringe view.

Nevertheless, my point is the initial battle is lost if you totally oppose the right to keep and bear arms. The amendment is in the Constitution, and the Supreme Court has affirmed that it is an individual right.

If you wish to restrict the right, the Court has permitted some regulation. Subject to the constant stream of firearm cases that are sure to flood court dockets for a generation, this more modest regulation is the current battlefield of gun rights.

I should also point out, that even if the Second Amendment was repealed tomorrow, very little would change. The amendment guarantees that ownership and use of firearms is a right, while the absence of the amendment simply removes this protection, it does not, in any way, outlaw or restrict the ownership, possession or use of firearms.

Apart from the federal constitutional protection, many state constitutions have provisions protecting gun rights. Most of these states already have liberal ownership and use provisions. Most states without their own constitutional protections already have restrictive gun control statutes. The only effect of the elimination of the Second Amendment would be to further polarize an already divided country. Also keep in mind that Congress was unable to pass a seemingly uncontroversial universal background check law, no less more restrictive measures such a an assault weapons ban or magazine limits. The absence of the amendment would neither change these results nor alter the polarized view of firearms in this country.

I would rather leave the Bill of Rights alone, and focus my political energies on current battles we could win, such as restoring the voting rights act and fighting back against new abortion restrictions.

[pnwmom]

22. I don't totally oppose the right to keep and bear arms.

I do oppose those who think it means that guns and gun ownership can't be regulated.

[branford]

26. It's not an either / or proposition.

Even under the current legal framework set forth by the Supreme Court some significant regulation is permitted. There simply is no will to enact further federal legislation. If there was no Second Amendment, more federal regulation would be allowed, but no additional restrictions would guaranteed.

As I previously stated, seemingly easy items such as universal background checks would almost definitely be constitutional under the current legal framework. Nevertheless, Congress still cannot pass such legislation. It has nothing to do with the amendment, rather the cultural and ideological divides in this country prevents such national legislation.

Additionally, without the amendment, the matter would just revert to the states. In states such as Connecticut and New York, regulation might tighten, but absent a complete ban there is little more they could actually do. Conversely, it would be very unlikely that states such as Texas, Florida and liberal Vermont would be seek further restrictions on gun rights. Basically, little to nothing would change.

Many appear to take it on faith that the ability to further restrict gun rights means the actual restriction of such rights. This is obviously not the case. The battle was, and still is, a cultural, primary geographic contest, generally focusing on the urban/rural divide.

Harping on poorly sourced fringe Second Amendment foundation theories like the slave insurrection hypothesis convinces no one and simply evinces and highlights the lack of legal underpinnings to the gun control position and ignores the generally understood historical context of gun rights in the United States.

If you want any new federal gun restrictions you need to speak directly to gun owners and their supporters. Constantly implying that these generally law-abiding Americans implicitly condone slavery, support the murder of children, are rednecks straight out of Deliverance, and other sundry and banal evil, will only get them to entrench.

[hack89]

29. No one questions that guns and gun ownership can't be regulated.

even Justice Scalia specifically says that in the Heller ruling.

[NYC_SKP]

14. I don't think I have to tell you...

...that a number of people would like to do away with the Second Amendment and these attempts to tie slavery to the second are nothing more than cheap attempts to shame supporters of it into giving in.

These people, interestingly enough, can be found on the left among progressives as well as on the right and among the corporate class.

It's a cheap tactic, in my opinion, and as I wrote above, I'm embarrassed for Mr. Hartmann, who would do well to find more meaningful things to fight, such as the imbalance of power between the entitled few and the masses, and the manner in which governments and journalists support this.

And one of the ways they support and perpetuate this imbalance is through distraction.

[pnwmom]

24. I don't want to do away with the 2nd Amendment.

But I disagree with those who interpret it to mean that gun use can't be regulated.

[Jenoch]

77. Again, who is saying that gun

use can't be regulated? There might be a few RW nutjobs who thinks there should be zero gun regulation, but nobody with any power has promoted such a cause.

[pnwmom]

78. That's basically the NRA's position. n/t

[Jenoch]

79. You HAVE to provide a link.

I'm not a member of the NRA but I am quite sure you are mistaken that the NRA does not want any regulation concerning guns.

[live love laugh]

96. The ad hominem attacks are a 'tell': you are "embarassed" and X Digger calls Hartman "silly"

Usually ad hominem attacks are a sign of desperation when there is an inability to deflect a powerful argument with a substantive counter attack. The intention of such attacks is to make those who identify with the arguer distance themselves or be labeled similarly by the attacker.

Why not address the facts and the premise of the argument instead?

You seek to minimize the discussion of guns, which are the primary cause for a city like Detroit being the murder capital of the USA and of the world most likely--as a "distraction." Murder which is a result primarily of guns is not a distraction and should not be trivialized which is why this topic is so very important.

[NYC_SKP]

98. Poverty and hopelessness are the root of Detroit's problems.

Not guns.

[DanTex]

30. LOL. Member since: Wed Jul 24, 2013. Favorite group: Gun Control & RKBA.

[branford]

34. Except virtually every one of my posts is in General Discussion on a variety of topics.

And why, exactly, would it matter when I joined or if even all my posts were in the Gun Control forum? Even you were once a new member, and I have been a long-time reader, but only recently registered because I had some free time and I was particularly interested in the Zimmerman case and the misery facing Detroit. Gun rights are a tiny component of my Democratic and liberal activism.

Are your arguments truly so weak that nebulous personal attacks substitute for an actual substantive attempt at refutation of the points raised in my comments?

Most importantly, do you honestly believe that someone cannot be a proud Democrat, most decidedly liberal and support gun rights? If not, you really need to get out more (try open carry, liberal Vermont) and ponder how Democratic support of gun rights hurt Al Gore in the 2000 presidential election. I believe in an expansive and classically liberal interpretation of the entire Constitution, including the Second Amendment. It's this liberal Constitutional theory that has guaranteed a woman's right to choose and the vast protections for speech and the press which allows us to congregate and discuss matters of political importance at places like DU.

I've been a politically active Democrat since I first volunteered for Michael Dukakis. I'm an attorney in NYC, who knows enough people to probably get a gun permit without difficulty. Nevertheless, I do not own a gun and have no desire to do so. I feel perfectly safe. I live and work in great neighborhoods, and I reside in a high-rise apartment with tight security. Nevertheless, my circumstances differ quite markedly from many and I do not fear inanimate objects. I choose not to own a gun, and like abortion, I do not seek to impose my choices on others. I also support universal background checks. However, with "allies" like many on this forum who openly wish to severely restrict gun rights, I'm not surprised that such a law faces an uphill climb in Congress.

[friendly_iconoclast]

49. As you can see, the subject of guns tends to attract self-appointed political officers.

Some of them tend to get quite frustrated when their viewpoint isn't enforced as official DU policy,
and they then act out in ways that (at times) border on self-parody.

[DanTex]

62. If you've actually been reading for a while, then you are surely aware of the huge number of gun

trolls that pass through here. A new poster with passionate pro-gun views is a huge red flag.

Can someone be a liberal Democrat and oppose gun control? No less and no more than someone can be a liberal Democrat and oppose abortion rights, or environmental protections, or anything else. I'm sure such people exists, but there aren't very many of them, and it is not the least bit surprising to me that the majority of pro-gun advocates, including those who post on DU, tend to have right-wing views that extend beyond guns.

I'm still waiting for anyone to present a remotely progressive argument in favor of gun rights. Comparing gun rights to abortion rights is obviously silly, for the simple reason that abortions don't kill anyone or affect anyone else. Somehow gun rights advocates always seem to omit the fact that guns kill 30,000 Americans every year, and that we have by far the highest homicide rate of any developed nation, due mainly to gun homicides, which barely exist in places like the UK where gun laws are much tighter.

To hear how this argument sounds to people not indoctrinated with pro-gun ideology, try this: "I choose not to dump toxic sludge into ground, but like abortion, I do not seek to impose my choices on others".

[branford]

67. You are free to assume the worst motives from those with whom you disagree on this issue,

including many other liberals who are otherwise your allies on most political, social and cultural matters, but be prepared for the inevitable further expansion of gun rights that has occurred of the last few decades, even without the recent Supreme Court decisions. I fear that divisions among Democrats on this issue will cost us elections. Al Gore's losing his home state of Tennessee should be an abject lesson in the damage this issue can cause the party.

I doubt we will ever find common ground on this issue. Nevertheless, I respect those who peacefully advocate their ideals, and wish you luck. In light of the sheer divisiveness of the issue, and how it often ignores the simple dichotomy of liberal vs. conservative, you will need all the luck you can get.

Lastly, as to that is the progressive argument in favor of gun rights, the answer is simple - the right to life. The right of self-defense, the ability to protect yourself and your loved ones from those who would do them harm with the best tool available for that purpose. You obviously would disagree, and cite numerous, questionable studies of how our street run red with blood because racist gun owners don't care about children. However, all this could change tomorrow. You simply need to find sufficient support among Americans to both amend the Constitution AND then pass federal legislation to ban or severely restrict firearms (and collect the tens of millions already in circulation). Easy.

[DanTex]

69. Inevitable is a pretty strong word.

I'm well aware that politics in the US have drifted to the right, not just on guns, but across the board. And I'm also aware that conservatives like yourself are celebrating this drift and predicting the "inevitable" demise of the welfare state, the EPA, gun control, abortion, progressive taxation, and so on. We'll see what happens. I hope, for the sake of the country, that things don't continue to move in the same direction, and there is some hope in the fact that conservatives (and gun rights advocates, which demographically are pretty much identical) tend to be old white males from southern rural areas.

Of course, the fact that politics have drifted to the right doesn't mean it's a good thing. I guess you are well aware that the statistical evidence on gun control is not on your side, which is why you preemptively attack the epidemiological evidence as "questionable". Funny that the gun-rights advocates take for granted that a gun is an a useful self-defense tool despite the fact that studies consistently find that the opposite is true. Seems like this is just another instance of "questionable" meaning "non in line with right-wing political ideology" (global warming, evolution, etc.).

[branford]

72. Conservatives like me? Wow.

If I'm a conservative, most of the Democratic Party and ACLU must be wearing brown shirts and goose stepping!

The only thing I'm "celebrating" is an expansive, classically liberal interpretation of the Constitution that protects the most rights for everyone. The Second Amendment and gun rights are not an exception to liberal views of governance and legal theory.

You apparently cannot reconcile liberal belief and support for gun rights. That's a pity. I would recommend that you not visit the entire State of Vermont, the cognitive dissonance would be painful.

Your "No True Scotsman" view of Democrats who support the Second Amendment will sadly continue to divide the party and help Republicans win elections, particularly in more rural areas and purple states. What will that do to our issues of common interest like the environment, abortion and taxation?

[DanTex]

75. Most of the Democratic party? LOL.

So not only do you not believe in epidemiological studies, you also don't believe in polls.

Like I said, I'm sure that there exist pro-gun liberal Dems, just as I'm sure there exist liberal Dems who believe that global warming is an anti-capitalist conspiracy. But, I haven't seen much credible evidence that gun control is losing elections for the Dems. In fact, an equal or stronger case could be made that Dems are losing elections due to abortion, taxation, or the environment. As long as you're advocating caving to the GOP for political expediency, how about caving to on global warming instead of guns? After all, environmental regulation is opposed by interests that have much more money than the gun lobby. And, let's face it, meaningful regulation of CO2 emissions is just as much of a long shot as meaningful gun control.

[branford]

80. I'm not "caving" to the GOP on guns, I agree with them on this issue as do many other Democrats.

If you believe that the gun issue cannot hurt Democrats, particularly in competitive southern and rural districts, you are ignoring history and reality. Ask Al Gore, Bill Clinton, and more recently, Joe Manchin (a popular politician who nevertheless felt that he needed to shoot a copy of a cap and trade bill and stress his NRA endorsement in order to ensure victory!).

[DanTex]

81. Depends what you mean by "many".

Notice that the thing that Joe Manchin felt the need to shoot was the cap and trade bill. That was less at least as much about environmental regulation than it was about guns. Are you now going to advocate caving on global warming, simply because it help out in West Virginia?

Yes, I get that red states contain conservatives, who tend to have conservative views, not just on guns, but across the board. My point is that guns are not unique here. You could make a case that any number of issues are hurting Dems in red states.

[branford]

83. Guns are somewhat unique politically.

We agree that many districts and states where Democrats need to win contain conservatives that must be courted to achieve victory and advance a more overall liberal agenda. However, gun rights are often not a simple conservative vs. liberal issue. If an election is already difficult, why then would a Democratic politician vocally oppose gun rights, when such rights are supported not only by Republicans, but also by large numbers of Democrats in these areas.

It doesn't matter if every Democrat in New York or Connecticut support firearms restrictions, the Democrats who are voting in these more conservative areas, who often share a more "conservative" view on guns, are the only ones who count. If all Democrats maintain ideological purity, as you seem to demand, but then proceed to lose elections, our entire liberal agenda is at risk.

[DanTex]

86. I don't see much evidence for that.

The polls I've seen find that guns are just as partisan as abortion or gay rights or anything else. Have you considered that maybe your own pro-gun views are affecting your assessment of how much of a partisan issue guns are? Again, remember, that Joe Manchin stunt was more about environmental regulation than guns. Support for gay marriage among Dems only runs about 60-65% -- and among African Americans, it's lower than 50%. And so on.

If you were, say, a global warming denying Democrat, or a pro-life Democrat, or an anti-gay Democrat, you could argue just as persuasively that the Dems should forget about carbon emissions or abortions or gay rights for the sake of the "entire liberal agenda". The only reason you think gun rights are special is because you personally agree with the GOP about guns.

[branford]

90. My views on guns are largely irrelevant here in Manhattan.

If you do not find the Democratic loss of Congress after the first assault weapons ban, or Al Gore's loss of his home State of Tennessee in 2000, persuasive as to the electoral effects of the gun issue, it's unlikely we will find common ground.

Nevertheless, I hope that the gun issue does not hurt our party and I look forward to working with you on other less contentious liberal causes.

[X_Digger]

13. Bogus' theory has been savaged by respected historians for the partisan crap it is.

The quickest refutation? Why did the northern states codify their own version of the second amendment in their respective constitutions, if the federal version was a 'gimme' to the south?

e.g.-

The present-day Pennsylvania Constitution, using language adopted in 1790, declares: "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."

Vermont: Adopted in 1777, the Vermont Constitution closely tracks the Pennsylvania Constitution. It states "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State.."

eta: Those two above? ^^ Northern states that wrote that before the federal version passed in 1792.

Connecticut: Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state (1818)

Massachusetts: The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. (1780)

Maine: Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms for the common defence; and this right shall never be questioned. (1820)

[Nye Bevan]

17. That's a pretty devastating debunking of the OP (nt)

[Lizzie Poppet]

18. Agreed. The assertion related in the OP is revisionist horseshit. (nt)

[ThoughtCriminal]

19. By "respected Historians"

you mean David Kopel?

[pnwmom]

21. Do you have a link to the work of these "respected historians"?

I see that none of the wordings you listed mention state "militias."

[X_Digger]

33. Pick up any Sanford Levinson, William Van Alstyne, or Laurence Tribe treatise on the subject.

Bogus leaned heavily on Michael Bellesiles, who has since been stripped of his chair and basically laughed out of the profession..

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/04/books/04bellisles.html

The ideological debate turned into a scholarly inquiry when critics pointed out several significant errors in fact and sources. An independent panel of three prominent historians concluded in 2002 that Mr. Bellesiles was “guilty of unprofessional and misleading work,”and raised questions about falsified data. Columbia University’s trustees took back the Bancroft history prize it had awarded the book, and Mr. Bellesiles resigned from the faculty at Emory University.

Bogus cites Bellesiles 10 times- more than any other source in his *cough* paper.

[ThoughtCriminal]

39. Flawed report

http://www.oah.org/pubs/nl/2003feb/wiener.html

[X_Digger]

42. Read it for yourself and decide-

http://www.emory.edu/news/Releases//Final_Report


Weiner's whining aside, they did a pretty thorough job.

[ThoughtCriminal]

44. Both

OK, to be honest, I skimmed the Emory report to see what the charges were about. To dismiss Weiner as "whining" is not really a rebuttal. But I think I would have to read Bellesiles' work to fully judge how serious the mistakes were in the context of his conclusions. However, I don't think I have the time to dig that deep. Debating guns is not a full time job for most of us.

As for academic honesty, you cut and paste several portions of David (CATO, Heartland Institute) Kopel's Kentucky Law Review article WITHOUT ATTRIBUTION ( http://chaselaw.nku.edu/documents/law_review/v29/nklr_v29n4.pdf ), and then tell us that we should disregard Bogus because he cites a sources has been disciplined for academic un-professionalism.

Fortunately, forum posts do not have to meet those academic standards, but if you are going to use that standard to discredit a source, you should not be afraid to cite your sources as well. Although, I can understand why you would not want to let DU members know where you get this stuff.

http://coloradopols.com/diary/43785/the-nra-pays-for-dave-kopel-too
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/05/23/gun-rights-activist-david-kopel-duped-by-fake-s/194193
http://davekopel.com/about.html

[X_Digger]

46. Dear, my words are generally my own. I use DU's 'excerpt' to denote a cut and paste.

Though I sometimes forget to put in the link. Perhaps my cut of a cut of a cut of a previous post of mine missed an attribution, but I doubt it's significantly more than a sentence.

I've read Bellesiles, the critiques of such, Tribe's "The Embarrassing Second Amendment", Kopel, Volokh, Van Alstyne, et al.

Funny how you're wandering around the central point, though. Why did the northern states codify their own version of the second amendment in their respective constitutions, if the federal version was a 'gimme' to the south?

I haven't seen anyone address that, and I've asked it before.

[ThoughtCriminal]

48. Generally your own

Your words are roughly 30% of post 13, the rest are from Kopel. While you are correct that I was not addressing the question of northern states in my posts, but I was directly addressing your attack on the credibility of Bellesiles. In doing this, you cited, without attribution, a non-credible, ultra right-wing source with a history of fabrication. The other sources were mentioned, but not quoted or sourced. "Missing an attribution" is the sort of thing that got Bellesiles in trouble, but DU is not an academic publication and you should not be expected to meet the same standards. The point I'm making is that the academic criticism of Bellisiles is questionable when you freely use a source that fabricates stories for the media and are not subject to that level of scrutiny.

No, I have not done research on why northern states also codified 2nd Amendment language, but if you'll allow me some speculation, I would welcome your comments (which btw I do appreciate).

In post-revolutionary America, different states faced different threats. In the case of Vermont and other northern border states, the British were still in Canada and considered a major threat. In other states, there was still on-going genocide of native tribes. While I suppose that would deflect the idea that the only reason it was included was to appease the southern states, it does not provide proof that: 1) The southern states would have signed on without it, 2) That state militias were a tool to preserve slavery, 3) That northern states would have not ratified the Constitution without it. I would also add that there was a significant amount of southern propaganda in the north about how dangerous fugitive slaves were.

My take from this is that fugitive slaves and slave rebellion may not have been the only reason for including the 2nd Amendment, but it was likely a significant motivator and sweetened the pot for southern states. I don't see much motivation for any state, in the context of late 18th century to oppose ratification of the 2nd Amendment and not create their own state militias. Why piss off Virginia for no gain?

[X_Digger]

51. Lol, two sentences about two states (well three _sentences_).

This was the section of a previous post of mine that I quoted from:

http://www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev/WhatStateConstitutionsTeach.htm (sections rearranged by me)

[div class='excerpt']The present-day Pennsylvania Constitution, using language adopted in 1790, declares: "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."

Vermont: Adopted in 1777, the Vermont Constitution closely tracks the Pennsylvania Constitution. It states "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State.."

Kentucky: The 1792 Kentucky constitution was nearly contemporaneous with the Second Amendment, which was ratified in 1791. Kentucky declared: "That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State, shall not be questioned."

Delaware: "A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use."

Alabama: The Alabama Constitution, adopted in 1819, guarantees "that every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state"

Arizona and Washington: These states were among the last to be admitted to the Union.* Their right to arms language is identical: "The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men."

Illinois: "Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."**

(footnotes removed)

That's a mighty big nit you're tugging on, lol.

Are the quoted state constitutions wrong? Or are you just attacking the source because you can't address the substance? Hrmm. I know what my money's on.

In post-revolutionary America, different states faced different threats. In the case of Vermont and other northern border states, the British were still in Canada and considered a major threat. In other states, there was still on-going genocide of native tribes. While I suppose that would deflect the idea that the only reason it was included was to appease the southern states, it does not provide proof that: 1) The southern states would have signed on without it, 2) That state militias were a tool to preserve slavery, 3) That northern states would have not ratified the Constitution without it. I would also add that there was a significant amount of southern propaganda in the north about how dangerous fugitive slaves were.

You're presupposing your own conclusion- there would be no need to protect a right to bear arms by citizens if it were strictly about state militias. These are state constitutions- what, was the Vermont legislature afraid that it would disarm itself? It does not follow. But I'm glad you reject Bogus' main premise, that the second was 'appeasement' to the South.

Re: 1 -- It was never meant to show the Southern states would have, absent the 2nd. Bogus makes the claim, but never directly supports it. He throws the worst uses of the militias as 'proof', but does not link it to proposal or ratification. Those are the dots that he never connects. The states could have 'deputized' gangs of armed men to do their dirty work, with or without the second amendment.

Re: 2 -- Who has denied that in some states, the militias were used to support slavery? *looks around* Not me.

At the same time, however, that does not support one way or the other, the premise that the second amendment was passed as appeasement to the South. Southern states had militias in their respective constitutions, and the right to bear arms as well. Not having it in the federal constitution doesn't make the state protected right go away.

It's right there in the preamble to the bill of rights-

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

This, I think, is where a lot of folks go off the rails. Rights aren't granted by the federal constitution, they are protected by it. That generation of thinkers, based on the Enlightenment philosophers, believed that rights are a part of being human. Whether deriving from God, god, or some nebulous Creator, they considered them inherent in the human condition.

My take from this is that fugitive slaves and slave rebellion may not have been the only reason for including the 2nd Amendment, but it was likely a significant motivator and sweetened the pot for southern states. I don't see much motivation for any state, in the context of late 18th century to oppose ratification of the 2nd Amendment and not create their own state militias. Why piss off Virginia for no gain?

Again, you're presupposing that the second amendment (or state analogues) are strictly about militias. State constitutions had that covered quite well, thanks.

The debates surrounding the bill of rights, and what eventually became the second amendment, makes no mention of the concern that Bogus (or you) suppose might have existed. Visit the Library of Congress' transcripts at http://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/billofrights.html

[ThoughtCriminal]

52. "Research methods"

Your "nit" was that he "cites Bellesiles 10 times" and Mr. Bellesiles was “guilty of unprofessional and misleading work,”. If you can trash Bogus on that basis, I don't see how you can defend Kopel. And if an entire book or paper can be discredited for citation errors and lack of proper attribution, don't be surprised if you get called out for doing the same thing.

Actually, I'm reading the Bogus paper now and it appears to be 6 times (out of 506 footnotes - "leaned heavily"?). I believe that your "research method" was to do a word count the number of times that "Bellesiles" appears. The problem with that is that both the mention in the manuscript and the corresponding footnote. But hey, who am I to question this kind of disciplined academic review? I suppose I would have to read Bellesiles' book to really judge that "Leaned heavily" comment. I'm guessing that you probably haven't read it either, but have read criticisms of it.

OK let's just pretend that post 33 doesn't exist. You do much better when you address the arguments directly. Which leads me to...

Having said all that, I'm about half way through Bogus' paper, and so far I would have to agree with you that the case is weak - I might even say extremely weak. Were Mason and Henry talking about slavery? Bogus suggests that everybody in the room knew what they were talking about. That's some pretty smokeless powder. It seems to me that in 1788 Virginia, they would not have to dance around the issue - if they were afraid that the Federal government would facilitating a slave rebellion or emancipation this way, they would just come out and say or write it publicly. So far, I'm not seeing anybody at the time making anything close to a direct argument that the Amendment was vital to protect slavery.

Need to finish reading to do before even a tentative conclusion, but I am not going to plow through everything said at the Richmond Convention for the sake of this argument! Would you?

[X_Digger]

56. I'm not citing Kopel's opinion, I'm citing Kopel citing *state constitutions*

Are they not what Kopel claims?

Bogus (and Bellesiles) are proposing their respective opinions, unlike Kopel who's citing fact. I'm not citing Kopel's opinion.

I have read Bellesiles' books- both 'Arming America' and the later one (the name escapes me, I read it last year on my kindle when it came out.) I think you're severely understating the case against Bellesiles. Read the actual pdf I posted upthread. It's not a missing citation or lack of attribution.

The debates surrounding the bill of rights are interesting in their own right, and definitely worth a read. One group of people were worried that future generations would do exactly what some are trying to- they thought that by calling out certain rights specifically for protection, that the result would be less protection for those not enumerated. Their contention was that the government wouldn't do what it wasn't specifically empowered to do, and the whole bill of rights was unneeded. They were right, unfortunately.

[ThoughtCriminal]

64. Does Kopel disagree with Bogus on the motivation of slavery?

Last edited Sun Aug 11, 2013, 07:11 PM - Edit history (1)

It appears that only "1877: America's Year of Living Violently" is available on Kindle. "Arming America..." and "The 2nd Amendment in Law and History" are not (currently).

Actually, it is not a matter of whether Kopel correctly cites state constitutions correctly (Global warming supporters cannot deny that CO2 is a colorless non-toxic gas!). It is whether they have any relevance on whether the majority of the 1788 Virginia legislature viewed the 2nd Amendment as vital to preserve slavery and was it worded to appease those concerns. What Vermont or any other state put in their constitution four years later could not have possibly entered the discussion. Given how incomplete public records were on the debate, that is a matter of opinion and speculation (Bogus addresses this in his paper).

Interesting - From your PDF:

"A much more plausible reading of this change is suggested
by the work of Don Higginbothar, the leading military historian of the
Revolutionary ea.83 Higginbotham demonstrates convincingly that the main
issue for both Federalists and Anti-Federalists in the Second Amendment debate
was not individual rights, but federalism.(85) It was the allocation of military
power in the new republic that was at the core of the debate over the militia 85 To
declare that the militia was to be used for the common defense would have
troubled Virginia Anti-Federalists who would have wanted to preserve the ability
of their state to use the militia to put down rebellion, a particularly troubling
prospect to southerners fearful of the danger posed by the threat of slave
insurrections. 86"

83 See Don Higginbotham, The Federalized Militia Debate: A Neglected Aspect of Second
Amendment Scholarship, 55 WM. & MARY Q. 39 (1998).
84id
85 See Bogus, supra note 13, at 407.
" Id. at 357

Hey Kopel is citing Bogus who cites Bellesiles! How about that!

I may be missing something in my short read, but it seems that Kopel is not disputing this at all but is mostly concerned with the individual vs. collective right debate.

[X_Digger]

65. That was the book, yep.

I merely quoted Kopel's quoting the various state constitutions to demonstrate the silliness of the notion that the second amendment was there to protect slavery. That is patently absurd in a state like Vermont, Connecticut, or Massachusetts who passed their own versions of the amendment- some before the federal constitutional amendments, some after.

[ThoughtCriminal]

68. I still don't see why Vermont's state Constitution has to do with Virginia in 1788

Last edited Sun Aug 11, 2013, 07:45 PM - Edit history (1)

Once again from your source:

It was the allocation of military
power in the new republic that was at the core of the debate over the militia. To
declare that the militia was to be used for the common defense would have
troubled Virginia Anti-Federalists who would have wanted to preserve the ability
of their state to use the militia to put down rebellion, a particularly troubling
prospect to southerners fearful of the danger posed by the threat of slave
insurrections

Now you are quoting Kopel only for the text of state constitutions. Kopel was obviously aware of what he was quoting, but did not regard the "notion as silly" in regards to Virginia and the U.S. Constitution.

The inclusion of militias in later or even earlier state constitutions would have no bearing on their concerns about federalism and possible federal control over that militia.

[X_Digger]

76. I've always only quoted Kopel for the state constitutions- to say otherwise is disingenuous.

Vermont's constitution (1777) predated passage of the federal second amendment (1792).

So.. what, Vermont, in anticipation of needing to secure the South's approval to get a federal constitution passed some time in the future, adds their own version of the second amendment fifteen years ahead of time?

Or Maine- If, as Bogus claims, Northern states had to 'appease' the Southern states by passing the second amendment- why would they then, some 30'ish years later (1820), pass their own version of the same?!?

[ThoughtCriminal]

85. Quite different motivations and wording

The state constitutions, in notable contrast to the U.S. versions typically mentioned "individuals", "persons", "citizens", "self". The state constitutions were likely worded to prevent local authorities and rebellions from restricting personal weapons and organized militias. This does not mean that they were were concerned about use of militias in common defense or federalism. The argument that a state level 2nd Amendment equals support for a U.S. 2nd Amendment is not supported by any of the sources that you have cited (indeed the opposite) and is... what's that phrase?... Your opinion.

I prohibit drinking and smoking in my house. That does not mean I support re-enacting Prohibition.

Also I'm not sure that you are accurately characterizing Bogus' argument. It does not seem to be a case of free state delegates opposing the 2nd Amendment and grudgingly agreeing to it to appease slave holding states. His focus is on the concerns of the Richmond Convention, The case he is making is that the 2nd Amendment was worded to reduce slave owner concerns that the Federal government would take control, remove or disband state militias that were crucial for keeping slaves under control.

The problem that I have with Bogus, is that there isn't direct documentation to support the claim. He argues that for political reasons, they avoided public discussion of the motivations. But while plausible, unless somebody unearths new undiscovered minutes from the Richmond Convention, I doubt there will ever be proof.

Note: Why Maine in 1820? - It was part of Massachusetts up until then.

[X_Digger]

92. Semantic self-perturbation.

The same people who, by committee, drafted the federal second amendment (see early drafts and the debates at the loc link for the various language proposed) are often the same folks who then went to their home states and passed the same kind of language in their state constitutions.

Or, in the case of the few who had passed analogous restrictions on government before the constitutional convention, they proposed their state's version as the federal one (Vermont e.g.).

The wording is only substantially different if you pick two extremes. A majority? Are quite similar to the federal amendment.

Even as new states entered the union, their constitutions were similarly worded. (Ohio 1802- "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State", Indiana 1816- "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves, and the state", Missouri 1820- "That the people have the right peaceably to assemble for their common good, and to apply to those vested with the powers of government for redress of grievances by petition or remonstrance; and that their right to bear arms in defence of themselves and of the State cannot be questioned.", Michigan 1835- Every person has a right to bear arms for the defence of himself and the State.)

Not the use of 'person', 'people'.

It's a bit of tea-leaf reading to intuit some extra-special meaning in the choice between the terms. Heck, some states early v later constitutions had 'citizen' and 'persons' interchanged (e.g. Mississippi 1817 v 1868 v 1890 or Missouri 1820 v 1875).

[freshwest]

20. An example of the tyranny that is being sold us under the label of liberty.

Last edited Thu Dec 25, 2014, 08:15 PM - Edit history (3)

Rand Paul is forgetful

Here are comments of what we are seeing IRL created by Koch funded ALEC laws and the media pushing the Tea Party and Libertarian view of the Second Amendment:

Hi, I'm wearing a firearm and deciding FOR YOU what constitutes "unamerican activities" while speaking into a microphone. For other examples of para-military people gathering en masse strapped with firearms while their leaders speak into microphones while deciding what constitutes patriotism, google "Gestapo rallies."

Anyone who says this man doesn't condone and advocate violence must think people are stupid. This militia man clearly stated that they would use violence, and who the hell walks around with ASSAULT WEAPONS if they don't intend to incite violence? People of Kentucky you're crazy if you vote for this RACIST SEDITIOUS IDIOT.

Is he really comparing his movement to the civil war? He does realize the "rebels" lost, right? The feds have put seditious, treasonous and fearmongering idiots down before.

Minorities shouldn't be able to force their agenda by physical violence. If there aren't enough like-minded to influence an election, they have to live with it, just like many regretably did during Bush's 8 years. These tea party people are a minority and if you talk to them personally, they don't have facts to back up their racist, delusional beliefs straight from the worst News channel.

How can Rand Paul not have noticed the weapons? Did he listen to the veiled threats by the speaker? 'a costly civil war that is imminent and sure to be forced upon us' doesn't sound like peacefulness.

Do we want a banana republic of rule by the gun, with private armies working for the plutocrats to enforce their property rights, religion and telling us where we can live, how we have to work and manage our sex lives, and tell us what we can do or say under their gunmen watching over us?

While everyone is busy talking about surveillance, and the spin being pushed by this same group, are we protected from losing our right to vote, how to manage our reproductive and sex lives, and giving all resources to those funding this?

I smell something rotten, and it's a lot more personal than phone calls or metadata. Would the mentality that would strip all these other rights from us, very private ones, stop at going after us who don't agree with them?

The 10th Amendment folks want us to live in 50 fiefdoms with human rights subject to the whims of plutocrats. In essence, they want to take away all the rights of those in those states who are not of their kind.

Paul Ryan wants to repeal the 14th Amendment with its Birthright Citizenship, Equal Protection Under the Law and Due Process. Yes, all of those were passed after the Civil War.

Tthat some are related to the Constitution and the 4th Amendment, did not protect women, minorities of any kind, or those who did not own property or have wealth, which are prerequisites for the Libertarian's Holy Grail of citizenship and political participation. They don't believe others deserve a vote.

The rights we hold dear, of labor, women, voting and others are never addressed by these zealots, except to call them as unConstitutional and calling us traitors. And increasingly, to destroy the government that is in place from that same Constitution.

[rrneck]

23. Wow.

It's a good thing the descendents of those slaves have the right to keep and bear arms.

[Motown_Johnny]

28. Unless they get stopped and frisked in NYC that is

[Judi Lynn]

25. Thanks for the exceptional O.P. n/t

[Motown_Johnny]

27. I've been saying that for years...

one recent example: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=997686






There really can't be any doubt. The slave states wanted to keep a military force so that they could defend their "right" to keep slaves. The 2nd Amendment gave them that ability. Without it the Federal Government would have had direct control of all military forces in the country and the slavers would have no defense against it.

Remember, that when drafting the Constitution there was an argument about keeping slavery legal, plus that whole 3/5ths of a human being thing. The slavers won the argument and got their amendment to help them defend themselves the next time the argument arose.

[branford]

38. "There really can't be any doubt." Really?

I guess the overwhelming majority of legal historians, both liberal and conservative, who believe the slave insurrection hypothesis is unsubstantiated, wishful hokum should just close-up shop.

In any event, you should now be glad that the descendants of these former slaves have the constitutional means and ability to protect themselves against violent bigots!

[Motown_Johnny]

40. An overstatement.. OK.. but still valid

Slave holders were, for all intents and purposes, tyrants. When tyrants start talking about defending against tyranny all they are really saying is that they want to defend their own personal brand of tyranny.



Your second paragraph assumes an equality which does not exist. The second amendment favors people like George Zimmerman. If a black man had shot a white teenager because he claimed to feel threatened that black man would be on death row.

I would be much happier if the descendants of former slaves had the treat of violent bigots reduced through a reduction of the firearms those bigots possess combined with equal treatment from our judicial system.

[branford]

47. I'm certainly not going to defend slaveholders . . .

but focusing on the fringe argument that the Second Amendment was ratified primarily to protect these slaveholders, a position not even supported by most liberal scholars who support firearm restrictions, is both irrelevant to the current political discussion and will convince few, if any, gun rights supporters of the good-faith of your position.

I am not a fervent gun rights absolutist, and do not even own, nor want to own, a gun. I even support certain restrictions such as universal background checks (however the devil is always in the details with any legislation). If you want to gain the backing of many moderate and liberal (and even some conservative) gun rights supporters, an entirely realistic goal, hyperbole will only have the opposite effect.

As I mentioned earlier, I'm a trial attorney (commercial litigation and insurance) in NYC. I regularly see the vestiges of discrimination in the justice system. If guns disappeared today, this discrimination would not substantially diminish. The fight for equality is, at best, only very tangentially related to the gun rights debate in 2013 and beyond.

I have no doubt about your sincerity in the fight against inequality and discrimination. However, the gun rights debate will only serve to distract you (and me) from far more laudable and achievable goals.

Lastly, although I was somewhat facetious in my prior comment, I do honestly believe that it is better for potential minority victims to be legally armed with the best tool available to defend themselves, rather than meekly submit to violent bigots without even a fighting chance.

[Motown_Johnny]

57. As a lawyer then, please consider this evidence

and try to understand why I fervently disagree with your view on this issue.



http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full


^snip^




Guns in the Home and Risk of a Violent Death in the Home: Findings from a National Study



Data from a US mortality follow-back survey were analyzed to determine whether having a firearm in the home increases the risk of a violent death in the home and whether risk varies by storage practice, type of gun, or number of guns in the home. Those persons with guns in the home were at greater risk than those without guns in the home of dying from a homicide in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 1.9, 95% confidence interval: 1.1, 3.4). They were also at greater risk of dying from a firearm homicide, but risk varied by age and whether the person was living with others at the time of death. The risk of dying from a suicide in the home was greater for males in homes with guns than for males without guns in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 10.4, 95% confidence interval: 5.8, 18.9). Persons with guns in the home were also more likely to have died from suicide committed with a firearm than from one committed by using a different method (adjusted odds ratio = 31.1, 95% confidence interval: 19.5, 49.6). Results show that regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home.






Maybe we should just properly fund our police, instead of forcing people who are already likely to be victimized into another dangerous situation.

[branford]

63. I am not asking you to agree with me, and do not doubt the sincerity of your beliefs.

First, I mention the fact that I'm an attorney, not to claim any superior authority or insight, but rather to emphasize that I personally often witness the vestiges of discrimination in our judicial system, and would very much like to see it eradicated. I do not believe that the gun debate, regardless of what side you take, will have any real impact.

We obviously disagree about the issue. That's fine, good people can have honest, civil disagreements.

Even assuming the data you present is entirely accurate and that the elimination of guns would usher in a new golden age of safety and security, an unlikely scenario, my current analysis of the issue would not demonstrably change. There are many features of our society that could stand to be reformed or improved. However, just because a proposed solution may be "good," or even the best available, it does not necessarily mean that the idea is constitutional. Many of the ills in our society, including discrimination, crime, hatred, curtailment of voting rights, etc., could be very aggressively addressed if the Constitution were ignored "for the greater good." Both liberals and conservative rightly reject such measures. Our freedoms, whether speech, religion, the press, protections against self-incrimination and searches, cruel and unusual punishment, etc., are sacrosanct. The right to keep and bear arms is no different. The right of men (and women) to defend themselves or other innocents, or resist tyranny, with the best know tool for the task, is a indispensable component of our Constitution.

However, nothing is absolute. The Court has wisely permitted some restrictions on the ownership, possession and use of firearms. Many of these restrictions are supported by the clear majority of Americans, including the prohibition of ownership by felons and those judicially declared a danger to themselves or others. In the future, new, constitutional restrictions may find common ground among populace, such as universal background checks.

However, compromise is not universal checks now, simply as a stepping stone to other, more draconian, restrictions later. Similarly, you have no hope of convincing individuals of the wisdom of your proposals if you imply that those with whom you disagree care little for the lives of children or are closet racists. Respect and decency could win you some "common sense" restrictions, you simply need to acknowledge and accept that the basic premise of the Second Amendment is not up for debate among most of the population.

Alternatively, you could attempt to repeal or amend Constitution. However, the latter option appears to be a fool's errand, as the popular will to do so is non-existent and you would still need to amass popular support for additional firearm restrictions.

Lastly, nothing about my opinion or analysis leads me to oppose greater funding for our police or other educational means to lower the incidence where good people believe they need to own a firearm or use it to defend themselves. In fact, if you oppose gun crime, as should all decent people, your best efforts should focus on community safety, efficient law enforcement and strong education to render the gun issue effectively moot.

[Motown_Johnny]

94. Lots of stuff in there

and all of it opinion. If you respond to this message please try to include some facts.


In response to your opinion that guns somehow help minorities, they seem to disagree. Maybe they are aware of the statistics I showed you in my last post.

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-03-23/national/37959221_1_guns-and-suicide-gun-deaths-gun-control

^snip^

For instance, African Americans tend to be stronger backers of tough gun controls than whites. A Washington Post-ABC News poll this month found that about three-quarters of blacks support stronger controls, compared with about half of whites. The poll also found that two-thirds of city dwellers support stronger gun controls, while only about a third of rural residents back them.




Next, the constitutional argument is debatable. There was no established personal right to own a firearm until the Shelby v. Holder case and I consider everything this court (led by a W. appointee) does to be suspect. Supreme Court cases have been overturned before. Sometimes it takes decades, and this one is pretty rock solid for the time being, but it is still possible. The very idea that you would reject a "new golden age of safety and security" to defend half of one sentence in the Constitution, while ignoring the other half, is very telling. The second amendment very clearly states that arms are meant for the security of a free state. Not for personal protection. If they wanted people to have guns for personal protection then they would have phrased the amendment that way, they didn't. In fact, an earlier draft had it phrased that arms were meant to defend the country. It seems that personal protection never entered into the discussion.




Next, your statement that the current restrictions on ownership of firearms is supported by the majority of Americans is dead wrong. The majority of Americans want stricter gun control laws. If you had been paying attention a few months ago when this was taken up in Congress, after the Newtown shooting, you would know this. Even if the polling data shows a temporary increase in support for stricter laws in the wake of the shooting there is still no evidence that a majority supports the status quo. At the very least a strong plurality wants stricter laws.


http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm (this doesn't copy well, please see the site)


^snip^


More strict Less strict Kept as they are Unsure/No answer

5/31 - 6/4/13

51% 11% 36% 2%










Now we get to the good stuff. For instance, your use of the word "draconian" when referring to restrictions. Most industrialized countries have much stricter gun control laws than we do. The idea that all of these nations are somehow subjected to cruelty because of these restrictions exposes your true views on this subject. I would argue that the lack of gun control measures in this nation is what is actually cruel.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/12/15/what-makes-americas-gun-culture-totally-unique-in-the-world-as-demonstrated-in-four-charts/





















Next.. when and how did I imply that people who don't agree with me don't care about the deaths of children or are closet racists? My last post was little more than a copy and paste of statistics showing that owning a gun is dangerous. It was in response to your comment about how minorities should be able to own guns to defend themselves.



As far as amending the Constitution I agree, for the time being. It can't be done...YET! In fact it is very unlikely that it can be done in my lifetime, or for many decades after my death. That doesn't change the fact that there may come a time when it can be done and just because a struggle is multi-generational that does not make it a fool's errand. I would argue the opposite. That fighting against the inevitable is a fool's errand and (In My Opinion) an end to the insanity, which is the gun culture in this country, is inevitable. Some of the popular support necessary already exists and seems to be growing each year.


Lastly, we do agree on something. I agree with your last paragraph in it's entirety and it is really nice to end this post on that note.

[DanTex]

31. Cue the gun trolls posting links to articles by Wayne LaPierre "debunking" this...

[Nye Bevan]

32. When a DUer pointed out above that MA inserted the right to bear arms into its constitution in 1780,

for me the debate was over.

Because we all know how enthusiastic about slavery Massachusetts was.

[factsarenotfair]

41. Well, maybe not.

EMANCIPATION in MASSACHUSETTS
The Massachusetts Legislature in 1777 tabled a proposal for gradual emancipation. The 1778 draft constitution legally recognized slavery and banned free blacks from voting. It was rejected at the polls, for other reasons. The more liberal state constitution approved two years later contained a bill of rights that declared "all men are born free and equal, and have ... the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberty."

This provided the basis for abolishing slavery in Massachusetts, but it clearly was not the intent of the Legislature to do so. Popular sentiment and the courts were pro-abolition, however. And it was a 1783 judicial decision, interpreting the wording of the 1780 constitution, that brought slavery to an end in Massachusetts.
http://www.slavenorth.com/massemancip.htm

And here is some fascinating reading about slavery in Massachusetts, about which I have been totally ignorant all of my life:
http://www.slavenorth.com/massachusetts.htm

[Nye Bevan]

43. Interesting.... thanks. I often learn stuff at DU (nt)

[branford]

36. Who needs Wayne LaPierre when we have the research and writings of Lawrence Tribe?

For heaven's sake, implying that someone is a NRA troll is NOT an actual substantive argument.

[Taitertots]

35. This is an inherently intellectually dishonest argument

[1-Old-Man]

37. Thank you for pointing that out.

The argument is absurd.

[Paladin]

45. Yeah, but it makes a nice bookend.....

...with that Gun Control Is Racist talking point that the Second Amendment Absolutists have been peddling for years.

[friendly_iconoclast]

50. Gun control sometimes was and is racist- just not always.

To claim that was/is never enacted for racial reasons is just as bogus (pun intended) as claiming
that it always was and is race-neutral.

[Paladin]

97. That isn't/wasn't how the Gun Enthusiasts present/presented it.

Really, I mean/meant it......

[friendly_iconoclast]

101. I am/was sure you do/did

[tritsofme]

53. The true meaning of the 2nd amendment will be revealed in 24 business hours.

[Skip Intro]

54. The war on The Second Amendment (among others) continues.

Getting more desperate and transparent with each effort.

[NutmegYankee]

61. Shhh. Not so loud.

Next they'll force you to register with the state for a speech license, and you can say anything you want about any leader, as long as you pay the $15 fee per word.

[Demo_Chris]

60. Ludicrous and irrelevant. nt

[former9thward]

66. Pure nonsense.

James Madison wrote the 2nd amendment. He gave his views on the subject in the Federalist Papers. But what would he know?

[branford]

70. Madison is a dead old slave owner. What would he know? /sarc

Who needs the wisdom of a former president who actually helped author the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and produced substantial contemporaneous writings discussing the many issues of his time, when we can rely on the insight of Thom Hartmann, radio personality.

[roamer65]

71. Doesn't really matter on the original intent of the amendment.

Times change and the SCOTUS changes with them. The present SCOTUS has given the amendment a very far reaching interpretation. Things will only change when we have a SCOTUS that does not give the amendment as wide a berth.

[branford]

74. Be very careful what you wish for . . .

Casually believing that the Court can and should reverse such an important constitutional decision supported by a great many Americans is dangerous.

Flip the issue to abortion. The Court today probably has the votes to eliminate or severely curtail the protections established in Roe v. Wade, but has not done so due primarily to the respect of legal precedent in our culture. When hoping that the Court reverse its gun rights position, never forget that an even later conservative Court could decimate other treasured liberal protections.

[jmg257]

73. Partly right...insurrections, invasions, enforcing the laws.

Slave rebellions weren't the only threat to freedom...anarchy, foreign powers, smugglers, and standing armies used by tyrants were viable too.

All varied depending on the state and their situation, and so the state militias could serve various roles, even when called forth for federal use.

[GreenStormCloud]

82. Your effort to repeal 2A is futile.

To amend the constitution requires 2/3 majority in both House & Senate, President does not sign, and 3/4 of states must ratify. That means any 13 states can block the amendment. There well more than 13 states that are very gun friendly. So your effort is going nowhere.

[branford]

84. In fairness, there's also the more leisurely route of a full Constitutional Convention . . .

The Second Amendment is in no danger of alteration or repeal.

[Hoyt]

87. Sounds fitting. My experience leads me to believe most gun lovers are also bigots, especially

those who tote in public.

[Wolf Frankula]

88. I'd always Understood it as the Original Dads

didn't want a standing army. A Well Regulated Militia (at State Level) was supposed to be INSTEAD of a standing army, not as a supplement to it.

Wolf

[branford]

91. The Founders greatly feared the corrupting power of a strong, unrestrained central government.

The apprehension of the power of a standing army was but one manifestation of the motivations that underlay the Bill of Right's constraints on the federal government (remember the BOL was only incorporated against the individual states with the 14th Amendment).

[X_Digger]

93. And even then, only piecemeal..

Had the 14th been applied to all provisions of the BoR at the passage of the 14th amendment, imagine how cool that would be?

I've always been fascinated by the post-14th SCOTUS, and their judgement in the Slaughterhouse cases, etc. I mean, if you look at the congressional record / debates surrounding the 14th amendment, it's perfectly clear that they intended all provisions of the BoR to apply to the states, immediately upon passage.

[Wolf Frankula]

104. It Has Been Argued the SCOTUS was in error

when it decided the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the States.
From Article Six:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding

Wolf

[librechik]

95. exactly that's why it's so closely identified w the South and racist groups today.

it's their heritage.

[branford]

99. Or . . .

Maybe gun rights are popular in the South (and many parts of the west) because historically these states were far more rural and involved with agriculture and ranching, where gun use was far more pedestrian and unexceptional. The perfect example of this is Vermont, a VERY liberal, northeastern state that is also quite rural and certainly likes its guns. In fact, Vermont is even an open carry state.

The far more industrialized and urban northeast simply had less historical need and use for guns as tools, and they therefore became less culturally relevant.

The racist argument for gun control is lazy and a perfect example of confirmation bias. One's positions concerning guns correlates far more to geography and the urban/rural divide than bigotry.

[librechik]

100. or

maybe it's more complex than any one cause or another, and being nitpicky about conversational generalities will get everybody deep in the weeds who doesn't have a degree in historical sociology. Do you?

[branford]

102. Which is precisely my point.

Who owns guns and the reasons for support of gun rights is a complicated issue, well beyond the simple dichotomy of liberal vs. conservative.

I wasn't being nit-picky, but I apparently succeeded in demonstrating the complexity of the issue.

As is evident from my other posts in this thread, I support gun rights (born, live and work in NYC, btw), but I also support some constitutional restrictions such as universal background checks (subject to the details of the actual legislation proposed). Although I'm not necessarily referring to you personally, the constant stream of invective against law-abiding gun owners, including the quite explicit allegations that they either are, or support, racists or child killers is, quite frankly, offensive and off-putting. Often the greatest supporters of gun restrictions are their own worst enemies in the national gun rights debate.

And no, my degrees are not in sociology. I have a B.A. in history, and a law degree. I am a practicing trial attorney. I also do not own a gun, nor have any reason nor desire to do so.

[mstinamotorcity2]

103. And they hate

Nat Turner.

[midnight]

105. I don't like the fact that the second amendment appears via Thom Hartman to preserve slave militia

patrols....

But it also gives those accused of a crime the right to remain silent.... The way things are going, they would take that right away but keep the slave militia patrols alive..

While most Americans may not consider the right to bear arms more precious than freedom of speech or religion, few constitutional provisions are more familiar to the public-at-large. One national poll showed that more Americans know that the Constitution contains a right to bear arms than know that it guarantees a right to remain silent if accused of crimes.[9]

http://www.saf.org/lawreviews/bogus2.htm

[pnwmom]

106. That is discouraging, but I guess not too surprising. n/t