The origins of the "Right to Bear Arms"

[chibaba]

I came across this article in Mother Jones magazine (3/20/08) about the origins of the second amendment and the current case about gun control in DC the Supreme Court is reviewing.

Here is an excerpt:

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.

Last week at an American Constitution Society briefing on the Heller case, NAACP Legal Defense Fund president John Payton explained the ugly history behind the gun lobby's favorite amendment. "That the Second Amendment was the last bulwark against the tyranny of the federal government is false," he said. Instead, the "well-regulated militias" cited in the Constitution almost certainly referred to state militias that were used to suppress slave insurrections. Payton explained that the founders added the Second Amendment in part to reassure southern states, such as Virginia, that the federal government wouldn’t use its new power to disarm state militias as a backdoor way of abolishing slavery.

This is pretty well-documented history, thanks to the work of Roger Williams School of Law professor Carl T. Bogus. In a 1998 law-review article based on a close analysis of James Madison’s original writings, Bogus explained the South’s obsession with militias during the ratification fights over the Constitution. “The militia remained the principal means of protecting the social order and preserving white control over an enormous black population,” Bogus writes. “Anything that might weaken this system presented the gravest of threats.” He goes on to document how anti-Federalists Patrick Henry and George Mason used the fear of slave rebellions as a way of drumming up opposition to the Constitution and how Madison eventually deployed the promise of the Second Amendment to placate Virginians and win their support for ratification.

None of this figured into Tuesday's arguments at the Supreme Court. Instead, a majority of the justices, especially Kennedy, seemed to buy the story that the founders were inordinately concerned with the ability of early settlers to use guns to fend off wild animals and Indians, not rebellious slaves. (Slate’s Dahlia Lithwick counts pivotal swing-voter Kennedy making no fewer than four mentions of a mythical "remote settler," who Kennedy suggested would have needed a gun to "defend himself and his family against hostile Indian tribes and outlaws, wolves and bears, and grizzlies.")

Whitewashing the Second Amendment

[1evitavresnoc]

That is a very well stated attempt by those that wish to remove an amendment they do not like. There is no evidence of the 2nd Amendment being for well regulated militias arming themselves against slave insurrections. As usual, we have left of center politicians and liars, I mean lawyers, pontificating on what they "think" the 2nd Amendment says. It says what it says with no interpretation needed. I find it strange that the same people that vociferously defend the other amendments are always the same individuals that wish to lock citizens out from the ability to use their God given right to protect themselves.

Like it or not, the SCOTUS will rightly decide in favor of Mr. Heller and affirm what the 2nd Amendment says,

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.

[chibaba]

This article is not an attempt to remove or change the amendment. It is simply an attempt to explain a piece of the history of the amendment. Like the origins of many other amendments and polices in this country, it was based on economics. And at that particular time, slavery was a huge part of the southern economy and those who representative the south wanted to protect the economy.

It didn’t state that slavery was the ultimate reason but a supplement to get the constitution ratified in the south.

The facts of history are the facts regardless of what the pundits, media, and the glossing over the “ugly” parts might have filled your brain with.

[1evitavresnoc]

No pundits, media elites or talking heads have "filled my brain". Just as these liars, I mean lawyers, and politicians have an opinion as to what the 2nd Amendment states I also have an opinion. And that opinion is the 2nd Amendment states plainly that people have a right to bear(keep, handle,buy, sell) arms. There is nothing there that says what kind of arm, how many you can have, or when you can have it. As long as you are a law abiding citizen, you have that right.


Can you tell me this? Why is there no uproar over the 1st Amendment? Could I not make an argument that freedom of assembly, the press, speech and religion are all inherently more destructive than one person with a firearm? How many wars have been strated with the simple words of one man/woman? How many people have had their lives and reputations destroyed by the reckless writings and reports of the press? How many people have been injured by so called peacable assemblers? How many lives have been stunted by restrictive religious teachings? Can an argument not be made that the most destructive force to American freedom is the 1st Amendment?

[MadameX]

If you have a License To Bear Arms, By Any Means Necessary Let Your Friends Smith & Wesson Do The Talking. The State Of Texas along with other states in the Union certainly does 24/7 365.

[chibaba]

You are correct; you are entitled to your opinion. However, the facts about the history are indisputable and did not figure into the argument to the Supreme Court which is what the article is about.

Now, please explain which parts are lies.

[MadameX]

In Texas, the right to carry along friends Smith & Wesson in public isn't a lie. It's fact not fantasy. So direct your gripes to the statemens there/ the powers that be who created the laws to be in effect 24/7 365. Home state of President Bush.

[chibaba]

Originally Posted by MadameX

In Texas, the right to carry along friends Smith & Wesson in public isn't a lie. It's fact not fantasy. So direct your gripes to the statemens there/ the powers that be who created the laws to be in effect 24/7 365. Home state of President Bush.

I was replying to 1evitavresnoc and his comment about the “so called” lying pundits and lawyers.

Again, the article is about origins of the second amendment (although the reason stated in the article was not the sole intention of the amendment) and how the history was not included in the arguments of the current case the Supreme Court is reviewing.

[chibaba]

No one is disputing how the second amendment has been interpreted since the law suits have begun. I’m just pointing out how some of the history has not been intentionally pass down as common knowledge. Regardless of how you feel about the so called right to bear arms, the facts are the facts; the amendment was partly racially motivated to suppress slave revolts in the south.

[MadameX]