The self-righteousness of some gun-grabbers never ceases to amaze me...

[derby378]

Here's what I'm picking up from some folks on DU: "You have no legitimate need to defend yourself, therefore you don't need a gun. That's what cops are for. Besides, you have no Constitutional right to own a gun - despite what the Second Amendment says. We alone know how to interpret the Second Amendment. We alone know what's best for public safety. We alone are willing to risk your own personal safety in order to prove our point that only the military, law enforcement, and criminals should be allowed to carry guns."

These are not verbatim quotes, naturally, but this is the vibe I'm picking up from certain DUers, and if any of them wish to refute me, they're certainly welcome to do so.

I just took a look at an old Americans for Gun Safety strategy session. Yes, AGS is a gun-control operation like the Brady Campaign or VPC. But they indicated that only 8% of Americans believe that there is no Constitutional right to own a gun. Which tells me that 92% of Americans seem to be able to grasp the Second Amendment just fine.

Rant over for now. Anthony Bourdain is on Travel Channel rigt now, and he's on the Texas/Mexico border. Mmmmm. Tex-Mex.

[ileus]

1. You're A-Ok D378.

[derby378]

3. Salud!

:toast:

[Skinner]

2. Is it really necessary to use terms like "gun-grabbers"?

That's really not helpful.

[derby378]

6. It's not meant as a blanket term for all gun-control advocates

There are a lot of folks who support gun control who are happy to have increased background checks, tighter restrictions at gun shows, and so on.

But I use the term to denote those who absolutely believe that we (1) have no need to own guns, and (2) have no right to own guns, therefore (3) we should hand them in to the proper authorities and hope for the best.

[blondeatlast]

16. Then why use it? Can't liberal gun owners come up with their own terms/agenda/ORGANIZATION?

Seriously, I think that the gun fans would do well to divorce themselves from the reactionary devices of the NRA.

[derby378]

17. See #14

[gorfle]

36. It's the 800 pound gorilla.

I think that the gun fans would do well to divorce themselves from the reactionary devices of the NRA.

I am not 100% enthralled with the NRA. Frankly I feel they are to mealy-mouthed about what the actual intent behind the 2nd Amendment actually was. I also feel that their publications strive to express a constant atmosphere of fear concerning the right to bear arms. Some of it is justified, some of it is over-hyped.

But they are the 800 pound gorilla for gun rights. No other organization has the power to lobby for my interests like the NRA does.

[bossy22]

44. agreed

the NRA protects gun owners rights like no other...they do though use alot of fear mongering in their publications (look at there in the news section- half the time they freak out about bills that have no chance of passing). then again i think that if it wasnt for the NRA, gun owners would be in alot worse of a position then we are now

[Richard Steele]

14. When speaking of the minority that desires complete confiscation of all privately-owned firearms...

...I think it's a perfectly valid descriptive term.

[TahitiNut]

19. Between "gun-grabbers" and "gun-nuts" the incivility is not one-sided.

I guess that's why folks such as myself would rather the feces-flinging be kept to the rubber room of the 'Guns' Forum. The messenger-centric attacks and epithets (in lieu of message-oriented discussion) make discussion all but impossible.

[SecularNATION]

33. Yes...

...in some cases it IS necessary. These people should be exposed for what they are. What they are, are individuals who would ban and confiscate ALL guns, with the possible exception of hunting firearms. This mentality is the biggest reason the Democratic Party has not won elections, it otherwise could have. George W. Bush would never have become President, if not for gun control. "Gun-Grabbers" is actually quite mild, compared to what they could be called. Skinner, have you asked the other side to refrain from constantly eluding to gun owners' supposed deficiency in the genital department? You know what I mean. Gun Owner = Small Penis. Have you done that? I haven't seen it.

[SecularNATION]

41. meant to say..

..alluding, not eluding.

[krispos42]

49. Oh, but I like the shiny metal penis jokes! Then I get to show off my Mannlicher!

:-)

[zanne]

53. If you think that's the reason the Dems havent' been winning elections..

You truly are living in your own little world. That's a straw man for people who want to spread fear among Democrats. You're trying to intimidate us to get your way.

[jody]

58. Such Democratic luminaries as Bill Clinton. Al Gore, and John Kerry believe voter perception that

Democratic presidential candidates are gun-grabbers was a major factor in causing we Dems to lose the last two presidential elections.

Of course you and your kind can continue to say to Clinton, Gore, and Kerry -- "You truly are living in your own little world."

The majority of Dems disagree with you however, and that's why the 2004 Dem Party platform for the first time said "We will protect Americans' Second Amendment right to own firearms".

[zanne]

62. You're dreaming. nt

[jody]

64. Sorry but it's you who is living in a fantasy world. n/t

[SecularNATION]

72. On the contrary..

..it is you who live in a dream world.

"Of the states I had won in 1996, Bush picked up Nevada, Arizona, Missouri, Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, West Virginia, and New Hampshire. Tennessee had been growing increasingly Republican. In 1992, 1996, and 2000, the Democratic vote had held steady at between 47 and 48 percent. The NRA also hurt Al badly there and in several other states, including Arkansas. For example, Yell County, where the Clintons had settled a century earlier, is a populist, culturally conservative county a Democrat has to win to carry the state in a tight race. Gore lost it to Bush 50-47 percent. The NRA did that."

From 'MY LIFE' by Bill Clinton

I guess I'm not the only one living in a dream world. zanne, go ahead, give Bill Clinton a call. Straighten him out.

[jody]

39. The term "gun-grabbers" may offend some but calling DU's Guns forum the "Gungeon" offends me because

the majority of DUers who respond to DU polls support the right of law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms for self-defense.

RKBA is a civil right but on DU it's not discussed in the "Civil Liberties" forum.

Perhaps those who use the term "gun-grabber" including me are just expressing our frustration at those who ignore the 2004 Democratic Party Platform that says "We will protect Americans' Second Amendment right to own firearms, and we will keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists by fighting gun crime, reauthorizing the assault weapons ban, and closing the gun show loophole, as President Bush proposed and failed to do."

IMO a casual reading of threads in DU's Guns forum will find a number of adjectives used by those who would ban handguns or all firearms that are much more demeaning than "gun-grabber"

In any case, my hats off to you Skinner for allowing a free and open discussion of the right to keep and bear arms because it's one of the divisive issues that can win or lose elections in many districts and states.

:toast: to Skinner for allowing both sides of the RKBA issue to be discussed.

[zanne]

55. All gun threads SHOULD BE IN THE GUN FORUM, NOT HERE

We're not allowed to get into arguments about religion here. Why are guns the exception when a gun forum was created solely for discussing guns? The moderators have loosened the rules, I think.

[jody]

56. Because the issue is not guns, it is the right to keep and bear arms primarily for self-defense and

secondarily about defense of state.

RKBA is a civil right and just one of the natural, inherent, inalienable/unalienable rights that each law-abiding citizen has and our Constitution requires government to protect those enumerated and unenumerated rights against the tyranny of a simple majority of votes in a democracy, i.e. 50% of the vote plus 1 vote.

I would be satisfied if the "Guns" forum were renamed "Right to Keep and Bear Arms" but I don't believe that will happen and my personal opinion doesn't count. :shrug:

[zanne]

57. I remember when the gun forum was created...

It was for having discussions about guns, period. If we keep gun threads in the Discussion forum, we'll have to allow religion threads, too. Also threads in the Gun Forum are only allowed to be 200 posts long. In GD, they go on forever.

[jody]

59. I've been a member of DU since 2001 and RKBA was relegated to the Guns forum or some such variant

wording from the very beginning.

I guess our memories are different. :shrug:

[zanne]

60. There were alot of gun threads over a period of weeks in GD....

It was getting out of hand. It could be that the Gun Forum was not "created" at that time, but all gun discussions were relegated to the Gun Forum.

[jody]

65. As I said, the Guns forum or variant was created early. I do know that as a growing pain, DU adopted

various policies to classify and separate various issues.

I doubt that the discussion of RKBA was "getting out of hand" any more than other divisive issue.

The one thing that makes RKBA so divisive relative to other natural, inherent, inalienable/unalienable rights is that gun-grabbers insist that law-abiding citizens do not have that right and demand bans of handguns or all firearms whereas for other such rights the issue is one of degree, e.g. no one really disputes freedom of speech but we do debate under what circumstances speech may occur.

[zanne]

61. Now you're being cute.

That sounds like an argument Karl Rove would come up with.

[jody]

66. Can't you do any better than an ad hominem attack? n/t

[zanne]

63. Um...Excuse me, but...

Pro-gun people labeled it the "gungeon".

[krispos42]

48. Hmmm... you have a point, I think. At least this time.

I just checked three high-post threads in the Gungeon, all of the pretty emotional, and could only find one "gun-nut" in them. And one "gun-obsessed".

The dialogue in the past four or five days, while emotional and intense, has been very polite. Surprisingly so.

(at least this time)

[fascisthunter]

4. Project Much on the "We Alone"? "Gun Grabbers" Duh

Stupid meme

[blondeatlast]

5. "Self-Righteousness?" "Gun-Grabbers?" I can see you were really aiming for a reasoned argument here.

:eyes:

[acmavm]

7. How big is your weapons stockpile? I mean you sure are being

offensive and touchy.

[derby378]

8. My own "stockpile" is my own personal concern...

Maybe you think I am being a little oversensitive, but I had to vent after seeing some other recent posts on the subject.

I honestly have no animosity towards anyone. But I think a little dose of "live and let live" is in order.

[TreasonousBastard]

9. Right on! It's almost as bad as the self-righteousness and..

smugness of many gun owners.

[derby378]

11. Can't argue with you there...

I think more of us need to sit down and discuss our differences. We could learn a lot from each other.

[Warpy]

10. Gee, that last NRA mailer must've been a real corker!

There is one simple fact that gun owners need to grasp: there are two possible ways to overturn the second amendment although regulation of it has always been upheld:

1. Abolish the amendment itself by constitutional amendment that would need to be ratified by 3/4 of the states. I don't see that one happening, do you?

2. Declare martial law and suspend the Congress, the courts, and the force of constitutional law. I can see that one being done, but not by the mean old gun grabbing Democrats. I see that one coming from the far right. Do you?

Now unless you're one of those lunatics who think every felon, nut case, and child under 10 needs to be armed, I suggest you reconsider your rhetoric and realize there is more common ground with other Democrats than there ever has been with the NRA, a once fine organization that has devolved into a shill for the gun makers and the GOP.

/rant off.

[tularetom]

12. So if 92% of us agree that it is our constitutional right to own a gun

WTF are you getting so bent out of shape about it for? The other 8%? Other than a bunch of scare propaganda from paranoid idiots at the NRA I haven't heard anybody threatening to repeal the 2nd amendment. I'm 66 years old and I've been hearing this scary bullshit for at least 40 years and I have more guns now than I did 40 years ago.

There are a couple of other amendments that concern me more than the 2nd. Like the one that gives us the right to be secure in our privacy from unreasonable search and seizure.

If anybody is gonna try to "grab" our guns it'll be the assholes who have already violated these other amendments.

I haven't heard any Dem presidential candidate saying anything like what you cite in your post.

You want guns? Go buy 'em. I don't give a shit. Call me when somebody refuses to sell them to you.

[derby378]

15. Hey, I'm all about the 4th Amendment, too...

...which reminds me that it's time to send another :hi: to Agent Mike, who's probably reading this right now thanks to AT&T and the NSA.

[leftofthedial]

13. for most of a year, 2001 - 2002,

only 10% of Americans opposed George W. Bush. Does that mean that 90% of Americans seem able to grasp "great Presidents"?

Gun nuts are the arrogant, self-righteous ones. They live in a gun-fueled veritable blood bath and deny that guns have anything to do with it, all so they can enjoy their hobby.

I don't advocate "gun grabbing," whatever that would be. I do advocate stronger regulation and harsher penalties for those who misuse guns. It is too late to "solve" this country's gun problem, short of an unacceptable totalitarian approach. We need a definitive decision about the meaning of the second amendment, which clearly references "a well-regulated militia," which you conveniently ignore. We need to overcome our society's Clint Eastwood myth though. Self defense with a gun is exceedingly rare. Murder, suicide, accidental death, armed robbery, aggravated assault . . . all those are far more common.

[derby378]

20. I see where you're going...

...but why do you think I'm ignoring the "well-regulated militia" provision? Especially since you and I are part of it?

[leftofthedial]

21. bullshit

I'm no member of a militia

and I've never been regulated, even badly, much less well-

[rockymountaindem]

28. Yes you are

The Colorado constitution defines the state militia as all able-bodied men over the age of 18.

[leftofthedial]

30. thanks for the info

I had no idea, despite living here since 1979, which is complete proof that it is not "well-regulated"

[zanne]

31. Yup. And it gives you the right to carry a musket!

I have nothing against muskets.

[SecularNATION]

35. A musket?

zanne, are you claiming the 2nd amendment wouldn't have been written, had semi-automatic rifles been the technology of the time? If so, do you have any evidence for your claim?

[zanne]

52. Do you think it would have been written that any INDIVIDUAL

That any individual had the right to carry arms? The Second Amendment states that a well-regulated Militia is entitled to carry arms. I know, I know, you have about a kazillion replies to that, none of which are true.

To answer your original question: If the firearms of today had been available back then, NO WAY would the founding fathers have written the Second Amendment as they did. They'd recognize that, instead of protecting the citizenry with weapons, we would be endangering the citizenry.

[SecularNATION]

71. NO WAY??

"They'd recognize that, instead of protecting the citizenry with weapons, we would be endangering the citizenry"

Have any evidence to support that statement?

Also, why didn't you answer my questions in post #46?

[bossy22]

73. hate to make you feel stupid

but here is something for the florida state constitution

(a) The right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves and of the lawful authority of the state shall not be infringed, except that the manner of bearing arms may be regulated by law.

(b) There shall be a mandatory period of three days, excluding weekends and legal holidays, between the purchase and delivery at retail of any handgun. For the purposes of this section, "purchase" means the transfer of money or other valuable consideration to the retailer, and "handgun" means a firearm capable of being carried and used by one hand, such as a pistol or revolver. Holders of a concealed weapon permit as prescribed in Florida law shall not be subject to the provisions of this paragraph.

(c) The legislature shall enact legislation implementing subsection (b) of this section, effective no later than December 31, 1991, which shall provide that anyone violating the provisions of subsection (b) shall be guilty of a felony.

(d) This restriction shall not apply to a trade in of another handgun.

This provision (the right to bear arms) was ratified in 1990

put that in your pipe and smoke it

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?Mode=Constitution&Submenu=3&Tab=statutes#A01S08


here is another one
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. The individual right to keep and bear arms shall not be denied or infringed by the State or a political subdivision of the State.
this was from alaska- the amended part is the second sentance about it being an individual right- they did this to clear up a few court cases
and here is another link http://ltgov.state.ak.us/constitution.php?section=1

[EricTeri]

74. How can you believe that...

...the 2nd Amendment states a well regulated militia is entitled to carry arms? Besides the fact that such a statement would be absurdly redundant and unnecessary, there is no logical reason for there to be an amendment to the Constitution to provide for that power. Further, there would be no logical way you could conclude that based upon the language and document construction, as the 2nd Amendment, like ALL of the Bill of Rights, is a restriction upon powers granted to government and do not in any way grant additional powers. That position makes no rational sense when one considers the document as a whole, rather than attempting to parse a few words in a vacuum.

Here's the text of the 2nd Amendment in its entirety. Please explain to us exactly where it states a well-regulated militia is entitled to carry arms.

"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.".

I will not be gentle upon interpretations indicating a poor comprehension of the English language on your part.

[Tejas]

77. Zanne, why do you hate the idea of

law-abiding citizens owning firearms?

What drives you?

[EricTeri]

37. And the 1st Amendment...

...protects your use of quill pens and hand-operated printing presses.

[zanne]

54. It's entirely different.

If the Framers had been around today, they would see an increased need for free speech, not less. And they wouldn't have allowed huge corporations to label themselves as "individuals".

Nice try, but no cigar.

[EricTeri]

67. What's different about it?

If you're going to make the absurd claim that the 2nd only protects technology current at the time, then you must logically accept that the 1st Amendment carries the same limitations.

Of course, since the Constitution only places limits upon GOVERNMENT, not the people, its entirely irrelevant anyway.

[SecularNATION]

46. Then...

what ARE you against? Muskets are firearms. You're obviously not antagonistic toward them all. Which firearms are you opposed to? Which ones would YOU ban, and why? Care to tell us?

[ac2007]

68. Better not tell them that muskets are cash-and-carry.

No background check required. Not only that, they are of the deadly .50 caliber variety. And with the right loading and bullets, they can be accurate to hundreds of yards.

But why inject facts into a good emotional plea?

[AlinPA]

22. Using guns to kill people is built into the US culture. On self-defense,

sometimes I wonder if these nut cases in the mass shootings just feel like they are defending themselves against society.

[leftofthedial]

32. I think there is no doubt that many of them do

[bossy22]

43. well self defense with firearms

is a hard thing to track- it is estimated that it somewhere between 2.5 million and 250,000 times a year guns are used in self defense (depends what stats you look at). Accidental firearm deaths are so low that they made up less than 1% of all accidental deaths for 2006.

that definitive decision you want- well its coming- though it doesnt look to be that good for gun control advocates. I think its safe to say it will probably be deemed an individual right (though i dont know if they will shoot down the ban or not). Also even if they don't rule it an ind right- there are 40 state constitutions which explicitely protect the right of the individual to possess arms.

I dont think any gun owner would disagree with making stricter penalities for offendors, but instead of trying to pass new laws, why dont we put some teeth into our current ones. The biggest source of guns into the illegal market is straw purchases- which are against federal law. But almost no one gets caught. Also lets fix the NICS system (instand gun background check system) that seems to be able to catch a criminal history but couldnt catch a mental history if it was a big black elephant in a white room.

I know i keep saying this, but we have good laws on the books that if we just put some effort into could save lives, but it seems like our politicians don't really care. there more interested in elbowing each other to get in front of the camera to say the pledge of alleigence then actually doing something.

If we save lives without infringing on peoples rights, wouldnt that be a win win situation??

[AlinPA]

18. Do you think that there should be any limit at all on who can carry guns around?

I'm not a gun-grabber. Just want to know if there should be any kind of limitations because denying access to guns of any US citizen seems to go against the 2nd ammendment.

[derby378]

23. It's a worthy topic of discussion...

I'm assuming that you're primarily talking about handguns. I'd say that felons and the mentally ill shouldn't own, let alone carry. Down here in Texas, we now have CHLs as a result of a mass shooting at a Luby's in Killeen that could have been mitigated somewhat had one law-abiding Texan at that restaurant been allowed to bring a pistol. No cops anywhere in sight, and a quick call to 911 would still mean a three-minute wait before the sirens could be heard.

[AlinPA]

24. I'm thinking about any kind of weapon that shoots bullets. It is so hard to

talk about this without arguing and I am not trying to argue with you or challenge you. Taking the 2nd amendment exactly says any US citzen can bear arms.

[derby378]

26. I hear you...

Again, I'd bar criminals and the mentally ill. I'd also want to see a minimum age enforced, say, 18 years of age for rifles and shotguns, 21 years old for handguns of any kind. If you're younger than this, maybe you can own, but you sure as hell can't carry without a parent by your side.

The tradeoff, in my mind, would be education, education, and more education. In order to help defuse the "Clint Eastwood myth" that someone else referenced on this thread, I'd insist that gun safety, gun maintenance, wound ballistics and characteristics, etc. be drilled into kids at the grade 8-12 level. That way, you could isolate cases of teenage machismo and brashness and intervene to modify such behavior before it gets those kids in a heap of trouble when they become adults.

A "well-regulated militia" should act like one - possessing self-discipline, sound judgement, and forethought. Slow to anger, more eager to negotiate and understand, reluctant - but not unwilling - to draw their guns if all attempts to peacefully resolve the situation break down.

[AlinPA]

29. Thanks for the reasoned response. Now, I would risk it to say that most

people would agree with you. I heard an argument on the TV in the gym today where they were talking about arming students with guns to carry into the class room and around campus. I'd worry a lot about a bunch of drunk college students armed with all kinds of guns (I live near a college town and there fights and trouble on Friday and Saturday nights nearly all due to drinking!) But, it still goes against the 2nd amendment to deny guns to the students on campus and that is indeed "gun control". Peace.

[bossy22]

42. on college students

As a 21 year old college student myself i resent the comments about us being "too drunk" to own guns. I understand people who wouldnt want an 18 year old college student packing- because its there first time possibly living away from their parents- more prone to irresponsible behvoir but that isnt in question- we are talking about 21 year old college students like myself. Most 21 year olds are seniors- we've been "on our own" for atleast 3 years. Most of us live in apartments/houses off campus- work jobs to pay rent- and live lives not much different from a 45 year old adult. There is a big difference between 18 year olds and 21 year old college students- and i understand the fear of having a "new college studnet" carrying a gun- but i don't understand treating a 21 year old like he/she doesnt know how to live on their own responsibly. there are those who are unruly and often acted irresponsibly- but they are the minority- most of us spend much of our free time trying to get a job with this terrible economy.

All i ask is dont look down on us. I live in my own apartment, i cook for myself, clean, pay my bills, go to school, go to work, have a beer now and then- i dont think im any different or less responsible then any other adult member of our society. And i know there are many others exactly like me

[Hangingon]

80. I think the issue is allowing students with a CHL to carry on

campus. I have not heard anyone speak of arming students. As to the view of a "bunch of drunken college students armed with all kinds of guns" i believe that is a straw issue. At least in Texas, a CHL is required to carry a weapon in public. This places limits on the type of weapons that can be carried. The CHL regs have no tolerance for drunkenness.

[krispos42]

50. Of course

The Second, like all other rights, is not absolute.

However, like all other rights, we're suppose to start from absolute freedom and add laws, restricitons, and regulations only as needed.

That is not what seems to be happening, though. The discourse on guns for many has been the opposite, starting from the position that there is no right to keep and bear arms and then grudgingly allowing certain freedoms.

And under our friendly neocon fascists that attitude is spreading to all other rights. We don't have to justify a restriction, we have to justify NOT having it restricted.

[treestar]

25. The enforceability of the laws is more the question

A gun regulator believes the regulations will work.

The thing is, they can't work, as we have regualations, and these shootings still happen.

But then what to do about these shootings? Most of the victims could have had guns, but many people don't choose to go around with their gun for self defense all the time. It's not the wild west anymore.

People just express their frustration at the shootings by thinking that regulation of guns could stop them. The real issue is how do people get to the place where they end up doing these shootings and how can that be intervened in?

[zanne]

27. You interpret the Second Amendment the way you want to.

The Hidden History of the Second Amendment
By Professor Carl T. Bogus
Roger Williams University School of Law
as published in the U.C. Davis Law Review

Synopsis

In his recent U.C. Davis Law Review article "The Hidden History of the Second Amendment," Roger Williams University School of Law Professor Carl T. Bogus offers a thesis that could forever change the way Americans view the Second Amendment: James Madison wrote the Second Amendment to assure the southern states that Congress would not undermine the slave system by disarming the militia, which were then the principal instruments of slave control throughout the South.

The story begins in Richmond, Virginia in the summer of 1788. Since it had been proposed by the convention in Philadelphia two years earlier, the Constitution of the United States had been the focus of an intense struggle. By its own terms, the Constitution required ratification by at least nine states; if that were not achieved the United States would not come into being. The Federalists were working hard for ratification, but anti-Federalists were opposing them with equal vigor. Although eight states had ratified the Constitution, most of the remaining states seemed to be leaning the other way, and it was uncertain whether a ninth state would be found. The last and best hope was Virginia, where the Federalists and anti-Federalists were about equally divided.

It was with high drama, therefore, that the Virginia ratifying convention convened in Richmond in June 1788. Madison led the forces for ratification, and as its principal author, no one understood the Constitution better. Yet the opposition was equally formidable. The anti-Federalists were led by George Mason, the most intellectual of the anti-Federalists, and Patrick Henry, who was considered the greatest orator of the day.

Mason and Henry made many arguments against ratification, but one of the strategies they devised was particularly shrewd. Virginia was nearly half black, and the white population lived in constant fear of slave insurrection. The main instrument of control was the militia. So critical was the militia for slave control that, in the main, the southern states refused to commit their militia to the war against the British. The Constitution, however, would transfer the lion's share of the power over the militia to Congress. Slavery was becoming increasingly obnoxious to the North, and southern delegates to the Philadelphia convention demanded and got an agreement, somewhat cryptically written into the Constitution, that deprived the federal government of authority to abolish slavery. Mason and Henry raised the specter of Congress using its authority over the militia to do indirectly what it could not do directly. They suggested that Congress might refuse to call forth the militia to suppress an insurrection, send southern militia to New Hampshire, or—and on this they harped repeatedly—disarm the militia. For Virginia and the South, these were chilling prospects.

The Federalists prevailed, but just barely. Although Virginia ratified the Constitution, Madison limped out of the Richmond Convention. Half of Virginia was still anti-Federalist, and the anti-Federalists were determined to end Madison's political career. Losing a bid to the United States Senate, Madison was reduced to running for a House seat. Patrick Henry had Madison's congressional district gerrymandered to include as many anti-Federalist areas as possible, then recruited a rising young star—James Monroe—to run for the seat.

Monroe campaigned as a champion for a bill of rights. Madison had previously been opposed to a bill of rights, but it was not a popular view. Cognitive dissonance set in, and Madison persuaded himself that he had only been opposed to a bill of rights prior to ratification. He promised the electorate he would support adding a bill of rights to the Constitution.

Madison won the election, and he went to Congress politically committed to supporting a bill of rights. When he drafted that document, he included a provision that with minor modifications became what is now the Second Amendment: "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."

In his 99-page article, Professor Bogus argues that the evidence—including an analysis of Madison's original language, and an understanding of how he and other founders drew on England's Declaration of Rights—strongly suggests that Madison wrote this provision for the specific purpose of assuring his constituency that Congress could not use its newly acquired power to deprive the states of an armed militia. Madison's concern, Professor Bogus argues, was not hunting, self-defense, national defense, or resistance to governmental tyranny—but slave control.

The "hidden history" of the Second Amendment is important for two reasons. First, it supports the view that the amendment does not grant individuals a right to keep and bear arms for their own purposes; rather it only protects the right to bear arms within the militia, as defined within the main body of the Constitution, under the joint control of the federal and state governments. At the time, the southern states extensively regulated their militias and prescribed their slave control responsibilities. Second, the hidden history is important because it fundamentally changes how we think about the right to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment takes on an entirely different complexion when instead of being symbolized by a musket in the hands of the minutemen, it is associated with a musket in the hands of the slave holder.
























All contents © 1998 Violence Policy Center

[jmg257]

34. Well known that most restrictive gun laws got started as ways to keep black from arming,

and this isn't even a "thesis". It is well-known that gun control started in the slave states.

Dred Scott decision, the U.S. Supreme Court showed that it shared this understanding that citizenship excluded blacks, and because of the relationship between citizenship and the carrying of arms:

"It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognized as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went."

{this dispicable decision does however also point out the obvious "private" right to keep and bear arms of all citizens}



"The historical record provides compelling evidence that racism underlies gun control laws - and not in any subtle way. Throughout much of American history, gun control was openly stated as a method for keeping blacks and Hispanics "in their place," and to quiet the racial fears of whites."
http://www.federalobserver.com/archive.php?aid=3312
http://libcom.org/library/racist-roots-gun-control-clayton-e-cramer



Also a well-known fact that the purpose of the 2nd is to secure the right of the people to keep and bear arms from federal infringments because of the power given to congress in the militia clauses (A1S8C15&C16) (which also secured to the militia the right to arms). Of course the militia observation doesn't limit that security, just gives a primary reason as to why it is important for the people to have their right secured.

[friendly_iconoclast]

40. "Cognitive dissonace" , indeed

I daresay the renewed push for gun control in the Sixties resulted partly from the actions of the Black Panthers and the Deacons For Defense and Justice.

How the Mulford Act was a reaction the the Panther's habit of open carrying:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=134977

(note especially reply #54)

And the Deacons For Defense and Justice:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deacons_for_Defense_and_Justice

A movie about the Deacons, with the great Forest Whittaker:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0335034


A story of Native Americans defeating the KKK:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Hayes_Pond

http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/marxism/1999w42/msg00022.htm

Let's not forget Robert F. (Rob) Williams:

"Radio Free Dixie: Robert F. Williams & the Roots of Black Power", by Timothy Tyson

http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/negroeswithguns/index.html


Harriet Tubman and Zora Neale Hurston (sp?) were both known to carry.

Funny how the great push for gun control came after people of color
decided that the Second Amendment applied to them as well.

Just keep telling us that only conservatives and reactionaries want guns. We know better.

[SteveM]

70. Uh, read the www.georgiacarry.com brief on Heller. Gun-control=racism

[WWFZD]

38. Good post, another

thing I've noticed, I've been lurking for a while.
The pro-2A, RKBA crowd consistently uses words and phrases such as "is", "it has been proven", "studies have conclusivley shown" and then cite the studies.
With the antis it's almost always "I feel", "it seems", "don't you think that?" ... Not to mention the ubiquitous penis size slams and the characterization of "gun nuts" as "paranoid" or, most recently, "creepy". I see the same people make the same erroneous claims over and over regarding "assault weapons" and machine guns.
I guess I should be used to it, most of my family is anti. There's no reasoning with them on the issue. These otherwise erudite, sensible individuals become quivering masses of jello at the mention of guns, much less the sight of one. It's like a New Guinean native at the first sight of a cell phone, me no like, bad mojo.
Anyway it's a great board. I've seen a lot more reasoned, articulate, passionate posts on this subject on this board then on most er, uh "traditional" gun boards.

[derby378]

45. Welcome to DU!

By any chance, is your alias an acronym for "What Would Frank Zappa Do?" :hi:

[WWFZD]

51. Thanks

Derby, yes it is. I was listening to "Catholic girls" when I decided to finally join the forum. It was a sad day in December of 1993 when he passed away.

[spin]

47. Glad to see you posting not lurking...

Many people here feel the way to stop violence is to outlaw guns. Many others believe guns in the hands of responsible citizens is the way to curb violence.

Violence in our society is the problem. If we could work together to find real methods to reduce violence we might just find that we could also reduce the demand for guns in our nation.

Expect your viewpoint to be challenged, and if you favor guns, your penis size to be questioned. It's all part of the fun in participating in this vibrant but rowdy group.

[DemOkie]

69. Great job Derby

Good post, especially the part about interpeting the 2nd Amendment.

I find it fairly ridiculous to imagine that the founders would have to amend the constitution to say that government has the right to have armed bodies of men.

[Lex Talionis]

75. This must be where I belong.

The sheep upstairs are rabid.

[Tejas]

76. Yep

Read several of your posts in GD, may have replied to a few. Seems to be a very different mindset upstairs, hard to fathom where they get their info at times. They act scared of "us", heck, I'm more scared of them than they are of me LOL!

Welcome to the Gungeon.

[Lex Talionis]

Imagine my suprise when I find kindred spirits here

Who can carry on a rational discussion, but what kind of lberals are they? My Grandmother is a liberal, she in no way has the beliefs that some on here have as, far as what passes for Liberalism here. I guess its good to see that both sides have their wackos.

[Lex Talionis]

79. Imagine my suprise when I find kindred spirits here

Who can carry on a rational discussion, but what kind of lberals are they? My Grandmother is a liberal, she in no way has the beliefs that some on here have as, far as what passes for Liberalism here. I guess its good to see that both sides have their wackos.

[Hangingon]

78. Good post D378

I agree there is a growing feeling here in DU against the right of an individual to keep guns.