Real history of Second Amendment - Suppresing Slave Revolts

[Cheerful Charlie]

Very interesting read why we have the 2nd amendment. Militias to suppress slave revolts.

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/07/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.
ADVERTISING


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.

 

[Perspicuo]

One hell of a mess.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Since we have no more slaves and no more chances of slave uprisings and no more slave patrol militias, does that mean the 2nd amendment is now obsolete?

 

[skepticalbip]

If you want to understand the founder's reasoning then you should read the Federalist Papers where they explained the purpose for the contents of the Constitution. James Madison explained the the purpose of the second amendment in his Federalist Paper No. 46.

 

[rjh01]

If you want to understand the founder's reasoning then you should read the Federalist Papers where they explained the purpose for the contents of the Constitution. James Madison explained the the purpose of the second amendment in his Federalist Paper No. 46.

Here is the link to the papers you mention
http://files.libertyfund.org/files/788/0084_LFeBk.pdf

The second amendment reads

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 other words the American people do not have a right to arms, except as part of a "well regulated militia." And yes it probably is obsolete.

 

[skepticalbip]

Here is the link to the papers you mention
http://files.libertyfund.org/files/788/0084_LFeBk.pdf

The second amendment reads

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 other words the American people do not have a right to arms, except as part of a "well regulated militia." And yes it probably is obsolete.

Not according to the reasoning of the founders. You really should read the papers you linked. The founders thought the role of government was quite different than you apparently do. The Constitution doesn't grant rights to the people - it grants specific and limited rights to the government. All rights and powers not specifically granted to the government are denied to it by the Constitution. The people retain all freedoms and rights not specifically ceded to the government by the Constitution.

I'll give an example:
When those in government wanted to outlaw alcohol, they couldn't because there was nothing in the Constitution giving the government the power to do so even though there is nothing in the Constitution giving the people the right to drink. To outlaw alcohol, the Constitution had to be amended to give the government that power otherwise the people would retain that right.

 

[prideandfall]

does that mean the 2nd amendment is now obsolete?

i would think any law or mandate or decree that refers to a technology which no longer exists (or has evolved so far beyond what it was when the statement was issued that it effectively no longer exists) is obsolete.

militias, inter-governmental aggression, and firearms themselves have all either changed to the point of being unrecognizable compared to what was available in the mid 1700s or has simply ceased to exist entirely.
the 2nd amendment has no relevant bearing on the modern world and should by any reasonable metric be discarded entirely.

 

[Trausti]

The Second Amendment, as all of the 10 Bill of Rights, is meant as a restriction on government to protect individual rights. It did not grant individual rights; it constrained the government from curtailing them. Read them. At the core is the protection of the "People" or the "Owner" or the "Person" or the "Accused." Nothing in the Bill of Rights says that "Congress" or the "States" or the "Militia" has the right to do this, that, or the other. The right to bear arms existed long before even the Constitution was drafted. It's part of English Common Law. And the Second Amendment expressly reserves the right to bear arms to the "People," not to the "Congress," not to the "States," and not to the "Militia." Any interpretation of the Bill of Rights which aggrandizes the government at the expense of the individual is wrong. To say that the Second Amendment exists only to protect slave patrols is beyond idiotic.

 

[Tristan Scott]

The Second Amendment, as all of the 10 Bill of Rights, is meant as a restriction on government to protect individual rights. It did not grant individual rights; it constrained the government from curtailing them. Read them. At the core is the protection of the "People" or the "Owner" or the "Person" or the "Accused." Nothing in the Bill of Rights says that "Congress" or the "States" or the "Militia" has the right to do this, that, or the other. The right to bear arms existed long before even the Constitution was drafted. It's part of English Common Law. And the Second Amendment expressly reserves the right to bear arms to the "People," not to the "Congress," not to the "States," and not to the "Militia." Any interpretation of the Bill of Rights which aggrandizes the government at the expense of the individual is wrong. To say that the Second Amendment exists only to protect slave patrols is beyond idiotic.

The 10th amendment has nothing to do with individual rights.

The courts have not been consistent in ruling on the second amendment. An 1875 ruling stated that the constitution did not give anyone the right to bear arms, and that the second amendment simply meant that if your state gave you that right, the federal government could not infringe upon it. Two recent decisions by the Roberts court have ruled that the second amendment "codifies" an individual right, but also declared that it can have limitations.

 

[Trausti]

The Second Amendment, as all of the 10 Bill of Rights, is meant as a restriction on government to protect individual rights. It did not grant individual rights; it constrained the government from curtailing them. Read them. At the core is the protection of the "People" or the "Owner" or the "Person" or the "Accused." Nothing in the Bill of Rights says that "Congress" or the "States" or the "Militia" has the right to do this, that, or the other. The right to bear arms existed long before even the Constitution was drafted. It's part of English Common Law. And the Second Amendment expressly reserves the right to bear arms to the "People," not to the "Congress," not to the "States," and not to the "Militia." Any interpretation of the Bill of Rights which aggrandizes the government at the expense of the individual is wrong. To say that the Second Amendment exists only to protect slave patrols is beyond idiotic.

The 10th amendment has nothing to do with individual rights.

The courts have not been consistent in ruling on the second amendment. An 1875 ruling stated that the constitution did not give anyone the right to bear arms, and that the second amendment simply meant that if your state gave you that right, the federal government could not infringe upon it. Two recent decisions by the Roberts court have ruled that the second amendment "codifies" an individual right, but also declared that it can have limitations.

Eek. The 10th Amendment is obviously there to affirm that the power of Congress is limited by the Constitution; if not in there, then the States, which ceded a portion of their sovereignty to create the federal government, retain the unlisted powers. And the 1875 case doesn't contradict anything I wrote:

The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendments means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government.

United States v. Cruikshank

 

[Tristan Scott]

And the 1875 case doesn't contradict anything I wrote:

Quote Originally Posted by Trausti
The Second Amendment, as all of the 10 Bill of Rights, is meant as a restriction on government to protect individual rights. It did not grant individual rights; it constrained the government from curtailing them. Read them. At the core is the protection of the "People" or the "Owner" or the "Person" or the "Accused." Nothing in the Bill of Rights says that "Congress" or the "States" or the "Militia" has the right to do this, that, or the other. The right to bear arms existed long before even the Constitution was drafted. It's part of English Common Law. And the Second Amendment expressly reserves the right to bear arms to the "People," not to the "Congress," not to the "States," and not to the "Militia." Any interpretation of the Bill of Rights which aggrandizes the government at the expense of the individual is wrong. To say that the Second Amendment exists only to protect slave patrols is beyond idiotic.

English common law is not given any relevance by the constitution. Many of the states had adopted certain facets of english Common law, but English Common law has no place in the Constitution.

But i didn't cite the case to contradict what you wrote except to point out that it is not as cut and dry as you make it out to be. The meaning of the second amendment is open to court interpretation. There have been many Justices who do not share your view. It's pretty well known that Chief Justice Warren Burger did not believe that the 2nd amendment reserved the individual right to bear arms. He believed it was right granted by the states.

Anyway, my point is only that the courts have never ruled constantly on this matter.

 

[Bomb#20]

English common law is not given any relevance by the constitution. Many of the states had adopted certain facets of english Common law, but English Common law has no place in the Constitution.

"In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law."

 

[Bomb#20]

i would think any law or mandate or decree that refers to a technology which no longer exists (or has evolved so far beyond what it was when the statement was issued that it effectively no longer exists) is obsolete.

militias, inter-governmental aggression, and firearms themselves have all either changed to the point of being unrecognizable compared to what was available in the mid 1700s or has simply ceased to exist entirely.
the 2nd amendment has no relevant bearing on the modern world and should by any reasonable metric be discarded entirely.

Do you regard counting how many states have ratified an amendment to repeal it as a reasonable metric? How about counting how many SC Justices think their job is to decide what the law should be rather than deciding what the law is?

 

[Tristan Scott]

English common law is not given any relevance by the constitution. Many of the states had adopted certain facets of english Common law, but English Common law has no place in the Constitution.

"In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law."

The seventh amendment only pertains to federal civil courts dealing with copyright cases and such. English law is almost never cited any more and hasn't since the middle nineteenth century when publishing of American case law became more widespread.

 

[Trausti]

"In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law."

The seventh amendment only pertains to federal civil courts dealing with copyright cases and such. English law is almost never cited any more and hasn't since the middle nineteenth century when publishing of American case law became more widespread.

So when the Second Amendment states the "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed," whence this right? The US is a common law country and every American law student reads English cases in their classes.

 

[J842P]

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 other words the American people do not have a right to arms, except as part of a "well regulated militia." And yes it probably is obsolete.

Your interpretation doesn't follow a plain reading of the amendment. And in the context of the rest of the Bill of Rights, your interpretation makes even less sense. Regardless, it has never been interpreted that way.

 

[Tristan Scott]

The seventh amendment only pertains to federal civil courts dealing with copyright cases and such. English law is almost never cited any more and hasn't since the middle nineteenth century when publishing of American case law became more widespread.

So when the Second Amendment states the "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed," whence this right? The US is a common law country and every American law student reads English cases in their classes.

So what? Common Law is simply used as Case Law in argument. If you had a case where there was no precedent in American Case Law then you might use English Law in argument, but if contradictory American Case Law exists it would probably trump your argument. Has any of this ever factored in to a decision pertaining to the second amendment?

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Thomas Jefferson wrote long letter in which he traced the origins of American law. It derived from English Common Law. Jefferson wrote this to counter claims American law was based on the Bible, which with he strongly disagreed.

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/jefferson_cooper.html

[h=1]Letter to Thomas Cooper[/h] Jefferson's letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, from Monticello, February 10, 1814.---


An interesting read when considered in light of modern day Christian right wingers claiming America was founded based on Christian principles.

 

[untermensche]

The whole Constitution is polluted with measures to appease slave holders.

And also to appease the so-called founders like Madison that did not like democracy very much.

 

[Trausti]

The whole Constitution is polluted with measures to appease slave holders.

And also to appease the so-called founders like Madison that did not like democracy very much.

Yeah, no double jeopardy, ex post facto laws, or bills of attainder; what the fuck?