The only reason we have the 2nd amendment was to enable slavery

[East_TN_Patriot]

That's according to the National Gun Victims Action Council, anyways.

http://gunvictimsact...enable-slavery/

Wow. I had no idea. Don't bother posting a response. Mine was obviously sent to the recycle bin while "awaiting moderator approval" since it's been a little while since I posted it. However, for your fun and entertainment, I copied it to my Facebook page and will share it here:

The assertions made in this article are completely false. Please do tell exactly which delegates to the Constitutional Convention opposed including the Second Amendment. I will make this easy for you; there wasn't one. The principles behind the Second Amendment were based on centuries of tradition and the English Bill of Rights Of 1689. You also misconstrue why Patrick Henry opposed the Constitution. He and other anti-federalists opposed the construction of a more powerful federal government and wanted to maintain the status-quo under the Articles of Confederation. In fact, the Bill of Rights including the Second Amendment was added in order to secure the support of anti-federalists who feared that the new federal government would trample on individual ancients unless these rights were specifically protected in the Constitution.

Now here is the real twist: There is no record that Patrick Henry ever made that statement. Even in a journal article by Carl T. Bogus published in 1998 in the UC Davis Law Review that tries to make the same argument as this blog post, this quote is conspicuously absent. Bogus cites several other quotes from the Virginia Ratifying Convention, including several from Patrick Henry. Bogus does the same thing with these quotes as the author of this post does, which is to creatively extrapolate hidden meaning and intent behind the words, which are clearly focused on concerns surrounding the power of a strong federal government. Was slavery an included issue? Certainly. However, to suggest that the sole driving force behind inclusion of the Second Amendment was to secure slavery and prevent slave insurrection is disingenuous and ignores historical facts.

If you want to talk gun laws and slavery, how about addressing the reality that the first gun control laws were passed on the South to prevent slaves from having the means to carry out a slave revolt? Slave codes and the post-Civil War black codes specifically prohibited black Americans from owning firearms. So, what's your argument now?

Here is part of what Patrick Henry did say, along with a link to the speech should you choose to examine it yourself:

"O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone; and you have no longer an aristocratical, no longer a democratical spirit. Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation, brought about by the punishment of those in power, inflicted by those who had no power at all? You read of a riot act in a country which is called one of the freest in the world, where a few neighbors cannot assemble without the risk of being shot by a hired soldiery, the engines of despotism. We may see such an act in America."

[gjohnsoniv]

Have they not read a history book?

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I wish your response had made it. That bunch is just a bunch of, what does Gideon say? Libtards.

[mikegideon]

I wish your response had made it. That bunch is just a bunch of, what does Gideon say? Libtards.

Pretty useful word these days.

[Caster]

As a country; Will we EVER hear the end of this slave business. No one alive has ever owned one or remembers them. AND, the generations that saw the "Black Codes" "Colored bathrooms and water fountains" and other nonsense are dead or dying off. Anti black sentiment is localized in small pockets [mostly rural] and every year a wave of kids are born that could care less about that mess.

Funny though, it's not even the bigots in this country that keep it from fading into obscurity, it's the [as we say now] Libtards. They're a like a spouse that keeps bringing up what you did before you were married.....decades later. Jeez, get some new material!!!

Libtards. Good word guys. Good word.

Edited June 9, 2012 by Caster

[Guest 6.8 AR]

You will never hear the end of it from liberals, who, by the way, were the ones who owned the slaves, at one time. Now,

they are using the once slaves to make them and us all slaves. If you will recall it was a Democrat named Lyndon B.

Johnson who blocked the Civil Rights Act, while Senate leader. Then, while President embraced it later, when it

was convenient to re-write history. The Democrats did a 180 and co-opted the black vote, using welfare as a tool

I call the same as modern day slavery. It never ends.

[TMF]

Stuff like this is making me believe that the only reason we have the 1st Amendment is to enable idiocy.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Yep, idiocy is speech, also.

[Guest FIST]

America is only responsible for 3% of slave trade ever. Guess which country is responsible for 30%, Africa.

[Smith]

America is only responsible for 3% of slave trade ever. Guess which country is responsible for 30%, Africa.

Technically, only 3% at most of slaves made it to America. Most (that made it out of Africa) went to South America and the Caribbean.

[Guest BungieCord]

I suppose they think the battles at Lexington and Concorde were precipitated by the Redcoats attempting to seize our ...slaves???

[MattCary]

America is only responsible for 3% of slave trade ever. Guess which country is responsible for 30%, Africa.

Technically, only 3% at most of slaves made it to America. Most (that made it out of Africa) went to South America and the Caribbean.

Are you two really interjecting facts into an emotion-based argument?

Sheesh.

[Guest FIST]

Are you two really interjecting facts into an emotion-based argument?

Sheesh.

No, we all know that the National Gun Victims Action Council would say they're lies and it's part of our right wing agenda. I'd rather slam my head off of a wall repeatedly than try and reason with those people.

[East_TN_Patriot]

No, we all know that the National Gun Victims Action Council would say they're lies and it's part of our right wing agenda. I'd rather slam my head off of a wall repeatedly than try and reason with those people.

My understanding is that the group is comprised mostly of the most radical members of the Brady group who were dissatisfied with Brady's lack of aggressive action. Their "fact sheets" are basically broad political commentary with a small handful of cherry-picked statistics that are taken totally out of context (yes, I know every group does that, but this is to the extreme). I just enjoy screwing with them.

They also have a pathetic Facebook page if anyone would like to see it. It's basically a bunch of pro-gun people posting on their wall. Kind of amusing.

[Guest don_m]

I suppose they think the battles at Lexington and Concorde were precipitated by the Redcoats attempting to seize our ...slaves???

It's curious that wording very similar to the 2A (though often without the "militia" reference that often hijacks the discussion) appears in the constitutions of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, and Delaware.