That 'well-regulated militia?' ...was originally created to quell rebellions of the enslaved, prof

[littlemissmartypants]

That ‘well-regulated militia?’ It was originally created to quell rebellions of the enslaved, prof says | Opinion
BY LEONARD PITTS JR. JUNE 18, 2021 11:15 AM


Conservatives have a special purgatory for uppity black women who dare question America’s founding myths.

New York Times journalist Nikole Hannah-Jones — her Pulitzer Prize-winning “1619 Project” centralized slavery in America’s origin story, a heresy that inspired laws banning her work from classrooms — now lives there. And she’s about to have company.

In her new book, “The Second,” Emory University history professor Carol Anderson takes on an even more sacred cow: guns. She argues that the Second Amendment — which supposedly came about solely as a hedge against tyranny — had at its heart a much less noble concern: Southern states demanded the right to bear arms because they feared rebellions by enslaved Africans.

So the South held America hostage. It refused to join the new nation unless it was guaranteed the right to keep its guns. Not that this was the region’s only demand. Ultimately, the Constitution contained several clauses protecting slavery and slave owners.

Snip...

More at the link.

https://amp.miamiherald.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/leonard-pitts-jr/article252203768.html?__twitter_impression=true

[patphil]

1. None of these militias can meet the "well regulated" part of the requirement.

They aren't regulated at all; they do as they please.
Disdain for the rule of law is pretty much a universal requirement for membership in these militias.
Essential they are groups of angry, armed men with a grudge against government, and various minorities.
It became obvious on January 6th that they are more like terrorist gangs than anything else.

[msongs]

6. a militia is a government sanctioned group. these guys are just gangs nt

[dutch777]

2. A key point in addition to yours that gun rights advocates ignore is exactly that "well regulated

miltia" part. The intent may well have been in support of quelling slave or any worker uprisings and understandable the South would have been a strong advocate for that. But it was also clear by the well regulated militia part, that this was not meant to be everybody freewheeling with their firearms as they may please. They were to be in a supervised and trained militia. Well regulated implies officers and rules, which if disobeyed would have consequences. Almost all current takes on the Second Amendment just completely ignore that key element clearly stated in the Constitution.

[gab13by13]

3. Militias were established

to work with the federal government. A good example was the Whiskey rebellion in Pa.

Whiskey Rebellion

noun U.S. History.
a revolt of settlers in western Pennsylvania in 1794 against a federal excise tax on whiskey: suppressed by militia called out by President George Washington to establish the authority of the federal government.

[Ocelot II]

4. They were against maintaining a standing army at the time the Constitution was written,

so the alternative was organized militias that could be called up if needed. But the point is that they were supposed to be organized, official militias and not bands of assholes who think they're an army. We now have actual military forces and don't need soldier wannabes with more guns than brains.

[FBaggins]

5. That's nonsense

Last edited Sun Jun 20, 2021, 07:02 AM - Edit history (1)

She tries to spin it as though the southern states were trying to keep their guns (leaving the reader with the impression that it was some sort of compromise with the northern states)

That’s entirely untrue. Most of the northern states already included something similar to 2A in their state constitutions (often explicitly including self defense and not limiting the right to any “militia”).

[zipplewrath]

7. Native Americans

The north was extensively concerned about Indian "raids.".
I suspect that you can find a wide variety of interests in the 2nd at the time. I've always seen it as the "Concord and Lexington Memorial Amendment".

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

10. This perspective was a factor for politicians in Southern States I'm sure.

Politicians everywhere make deals. Clearly the 10 articles in the Bill of Rights were ratified by the required three quarters (11 of 14) of the states. Virginia was the eleventh. What began as Article Five in 1789 was ratified by Northern states. I don't really know the history but I notice that Georgia was not among the first eleven states to ratify.

I'm sure the legislators in every state had their own reasons and state's interests in mind for doing as they did. Less than half of those first eleven states were in the South.