AMERICAN INDIANS & THE 2ND AMENDMENT

[niyad]

AMERICAN INDIANS & THE 2ND AMENDMENT





AMERICAN INDIANS & THE 2ND AMENDMENT



This is an information only paper of historical research on the creation of the 2nd Amendment and its relation to Native America. It is not a work of argument or discussion on or about the 2nd Amendment or any issues since the writing of the amendment. The Author is in no way taking any sides on any rhetoric. Please be aware that this is for knowledge on the hows and whys the 2nd Amendment was created with regards to or more specific disregards to the Native American People.

As for any arguments on the 2nd Amendment, that is another subject entirely to be discussed elsewhere.



AMENDMENT II

The 2nd Amendment reads as follows with punctuation: A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

This one somewhat simple concept has been argued about since it was first proposed by James Madison in 1789. Everything from the reason why it was written to the placement of punctuation and wording (especially the placement and use of the word of) has created heated arguments, debates, law suites, fights and more for what appears to be forever. The amendment passed by Congress has different punctuation than the amendment passed and ratified by the individual states. In fact what eventually became the 2nd Amendment was argued, debated and changed in the House, the Senate and the States multiple times from June 1789 until 1791 when it finally became law. From the moment it was proposed the Native American Culture was an integral part of the early arguments and debates on this 2nd Amendment. Most of America and the world have no idea that America’s Constitutional right to keep and bear arms was in part to protect one from Native Americans and even give one the right to kill Native Americans.

. . . . .





The Bill of Rights as mentioned before came about because the loss of personal and civil rights and liberties had been the original reason for rebellion against the British Empire. Specific guarantees of these rights were given by a group of statesmen led by Jefferson, Madison, Mason and others who felt that these rights were sufficiently important to be stated separately and they became the first 10 amendments of the Constitution. One such right was the 2nd Amendment to “bear arms” for the following reasons as set forth in 1791:
1. Protection from the “Blood Thirsty Heathen Red Savages”
2. Protection from another country or government including Native American Nations
3. Protection from Wild Animals, including Native Americans



REASONS SET FORTH

1. Protection from the “Blood Thirsty Heathen Red Savages”
. . . .

Americans felt that they could not trust the Native Americans. This was for many reasons including the support of many Native American Nations as Allies to Great Britain during the Revolution. The fact that the Native Peoples had been split by Europeans since before the French & Indian War and that many Native American Nations helped the American Colonists in the French & Indian War and the American Revolution was completely and utterly forgotten. Now the great United States saw the Native American Nations as nothing more than a hindrance and a nuisance. America also feared the Native Americans. The Native Peoples of this land were often referred to as “Blood Thirsty Savages, Heathen Red Savages, Merciless Savages and Barbarians” as well as other derogatory terms by just about everyone from the average farmer to the well-off merchant and the “Founding Fathers.”

In fact the most illustrious and sacred document of freedom and liberty the Declaration of Independence refers to Native Americans as “…the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions” Article XXVII.




Read more: http://www.powwows.com/2011/07/21/american-indians-and-the-2nd-amendment/#ixzz3wxjw7BhZ




The Real And Racist Origins of the Second Amendment


A Black Agenda Radio commentary by BAR managing editor Bruce A. Dixon

The “well-regulated militia” that the US Constitution's second amendment refers to were slave patrols, land stealers and Indian killers, all quite necessary as the amendment's language states “to the security of a free state” built with stolen labor upon stolen land. Unless and until we acknowledge that history, we cannot have an honest discussion about gun control.

. . . .

http://www.blackagendareport.com/content/american-history-black-history-and-right-bear-arms

[frizzled]

1. That is very interesting, and I'd like to see the 1791 source they're quoting.

Federalist #46, 1788 has the passage I usually consult on the thinking at the time the right to bear arms was entrenched. Madison indicates that, at any point, the maximum force that can be brought to bear by the government to enforce its mandates is but a small fraction of the might of an armed citizenry:

The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall
of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the
federal government may previously accumulate a military force for
the projects of ambition. The reasonings contained in these
papers must have been employed to little purpose indeed, if it
could be necessary now to disprove the reality of this danger.
That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of
time, elect an uninterupted succession of men ready to betray
both; that the traitors should, throughout this period,
uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the
extension of the military establishment; that the governments
and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold
the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until
it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear to
every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious
jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal,
than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism.
Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. 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. Those who are best acquainted with the last
successful resistance of this country against the British arms,
will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the
advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the
people of almost every other nation, the existence of
subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by
which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against
the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a
simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the
military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which
are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the
governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is
not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to
shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the
additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves,
who could collect the national will and direct the national
force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these
governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may
be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every
tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the
legions which surround it.

[niyad]

2. was reading "an indigenous people's history" this morning, and the part about 2A. especially

in view of what is going on in oregon right now. . .

[2naSalit]

3. Great big K&R!!!!

Thanks for posting!!

[niyad]

4. you are most welcome.

[ileus]

5. That's the great thing about modern times, it's everyone's right now.