Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Truthout)   We can all agree that the debate over gun control in the USA is getting a bit heated at the moment. Clearly, what it needs is a giant bucket of gasoline   (truth-out.org) divider line 370
    More: Interesting, United States, second amendment, amendments, slave states, Patrick Henry, James Monroe, freed slave, George Mason  
•       •       •

17034 clicks; posted to Main » on 17 Jan 2013 at 8:38 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



370 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-17 06:59:59 AM  
We knew that gun nuts are uncivilized barbarians. Where is the news?
 
2013-01-17 07:38:34 AM  
Oh, for f*ck's sake.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-01-17 07:48:26 AM  
It's certainly a more plausible explanation than the idea that the framers wanted deranged extremists to overthrow the elected government.
 
2013-01-17 07:56:53 AM  

vpb: It's certainly a more plausible explanation than the idea that the framers wanted deranged extremists to overthrow the elected government.


Yes, because people who had just overthrown their previous government by force of arms were more concerned about preserving slavery.
 
2013-01-17 08:09:07 AM  
Fark it, I'm calling in sick. This thread should be epic
 
2013-01-17 08:24:10 AM  
Does this mean I can now finally own slaves?
 
2013-01-17 08:24:45 AM  
Or, does it mean I can finally offer myself as a slave?
 
2013-01-17 08:26:58 AM  

dittybopper: vpb: It's certainly a more plausible explanation than the idea that the framers wanted deranged extremists to overthrow the elected government.

Yes, because people who had just overthrown their previous government by force of arms were more concerned about preserving slavery.


They were incredibly concerned with preserving slavery.  The entire thing was going to fall apart if there was even one mention of slavery.
 
2013-01-17 08:36:48 AM  
cdn2.planetminecraft.com
 
2013-01-17 08:42:21 AM  

dittybopper: vpb: It's certainly a more plausible explanation than the idea that the framers wanted deranged extremists to overthrow the elected government.

Yes, because people who had just overthrown their previous government by force of arms were more concerned about preserving slavery.


In a historical context, it kind of makes sense.
 
2013-01-17 08:42:37 AM  
"As Dr. Carl T. Bogus wrote for the University of California Law Review in 1998"

I read it. It was completely Bogus.
 
2013-01-17 08:42:51 AM  
Makes sense. You have, what, a 10-15 foot range with a whip? How can you control property that can sprint with that?
 
2013-01-17 08:43:54 AM  

Cythraul: Or, does it mean I can finally offer myself as a slave?


Eh, we could use an extra pair of hands in the house. Send me your résumé.
 
2013-01-17 08:44:23 AM  
This does explain the "well regulated militia" wording.
 
2013-01-17 08:44:34 AM  
That author really did go full 'tard.
 
2013-01-17 08:44:41 AM  
Gun nuts disconnect in my mind the second "well-regulated" is read. Fark Scalia, the framers didn't put that in for no reason.
 
2013-01-17 08:46:20 AM  
Now this is how you troll
 
2013-01-17 08:47:03 AM  

Nabb1: Cythraul: Or, does it mean I can finally offer myself as a slave?

Eh, we could use an extra pair of hands in the house. Send me your résumé.


Resume:

Willing to be slave.

'Free' labor, only have to pay room and board.
 
2013-01-17 08:47:05 AM  
So the 2nd Amendment was meant to keep slaves in check, yet 300 years later the descendants of slaves are using guns to kill each other.

Irony much?
 
2013-01-17 08:47:16 AM  

Cythraul: Does this mean I can now finally own slaves?


Football is legalized slavery.
 
2013-01-17 08:47:54 AM  
There never would have been slavery in the first place if the slaves had guns.
 
2013-01-17 08:48:32 AM  

encyclopediaplushuman: Gun nuts disconnect in my mind the second "well-regulated" is read. Fark Scalia, the framers didn't put that in for no reason.


And gun control advocates skip over the whole "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms..."

It says people. Not soldiers, militiamen, etc. When 'people' is used throughout the rest of the Constitution it refers to the citizens/residents of the country...why would it be any different in the 2nd Amendment?
 
2013-01-17 08:48:37 AM  
Well we'll have to use gas. The SOBs took my napalm.

/snark
 
2013-01-17 08:48:55 AM  
it's called slash and burn. used in agriculture all the time.
 
2013-01-17 08:49:35 AM  

Peter von Nostrand: Fark it, I'm calling in sick. This thread should be epic



i.imgur.com
 
2013-01-17 08:49:40 AM  
We all have the right to keep a pair of bear arms on our walls. I don't see how we can make that any clearer.
 
2013-01-17 08:49:49 AM  
The right of the people to keep and bear arms is separate from a well regulated militia.

/when will folks learn to avoid the alluring chicken?
 
2013-01-17 08:49:54 AM  
Is it a living document or is it not a living document?

The 2nd Amendment doesn't mean those things now. It means that every American (with certain exceptions) has the right to own a gun.

It has nothing to do with slavery today.
 
2013-01-17 08:50:11 AM  
I knew guns killed people, but I didn't know they were racist.  Well, this changes everything.
 
2013-01-17 08:50:24 AM  

LegacyDL: So the 2nd Amendment was meant to keep slaves in check, yet 300 years later the descendants of slaves are using guns to kill each other.

Irony much?


So you're saying the 2nd Amendment is working as intended?
 
2013-01-17 08:50:29 AM  

wataga123: Cythraul: Does this mean I can now finally own slaves?

Football is legalized slavery.


Actually, CREDIT is legalized slavery. And this is no joke.
 
2013-01-17 08:50:32 AM  
I swear I gotta do everything around this country.

The President should announce that the findings show that the Reagan Revolution is an abject failure and the state should return to the job of caring for it's crazies. Now, since warehousing them is cruel, inhumane and expensive, he should suggest that the United States mobilize it's forces to relocate the criminally insane to some place "cough cough' Australia "cough cough".

Using the Air Force and Navy to deploy these persons of criminally violent intent, they can move them to the island nation with stealth. Just give Johnny Wannashootupaschool a nice dose of meds and push him out of the back of a C-17 with a parachute and a talking sock.

The President gets to blame Saint Ron the Teflon for the current woes and as long as they spread the nuts thin like Vegemite, Australia shouldn't be any the wiser.
 
2013-01-17 08:50:41 AM  

wataga123: Cythraul: Does this mean I can now finally own slaves?

Football is legalized slavery.


Mark Sanchez says don't forget the mexican labor
 
2013-01-17 08:51:09 AM  
Wow...did not see this one coming.

Being from the South, while not a History major I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express the other night, and I am fairly well read on things of the "Old" south and have never run across this hypothesis. This is truly an interesting claim. If this was in fact true then would not the 13th amendment have had a direct impact on the 2nd amendment?

If in fact the 2nd amendment was around because of slavery, once that was gone, the 2nd amendment should have been void. Shocked they missed that little bit of Constitutional tidy up in 1865
 
2013-01-17 08:51:46 AM  

wataga123: Cythraul: Does this mean I can now finally own slaves?

Football is legalized slavery.


Can you cite for me the last time someone was shot or lynched for running away from training camp?
 
2013-01-17 08:51:55 AM  
farm9.staticflickr.com">
 
2013-01-17 08:52:49 AM  
All this is another shiatty attempt to make the NRA and gun owners look like the "new Klan". They can't win on the strength of their arguments so they try to link gun owners with slavery.
 
2013-01-17 08:53:00 AM  

wataga123: Cythraul: Does this mean I can now finally own slaves?

Football is legalized slavery.


Apparently so is the music industry.

adamcarolla.com
 
2013-01-17 08:54:32 AM  
From a legal standpoint it's irrelevant:

(a) The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. - DC v. Heller.

It's also ahistorical: the first gun control laws in the colonies were to prevent slaves from owning guns. After the Civil War, those laws were re-written to be facially race neutral, but were actually designed to disarm blacks while leaving whites armed. In fact, this was even recognized openly in court decisions:

I know something of the history of this legislation. The original Act of 1893 was passed
when there was a great influx of negro laborers in this State drawn here for the purpose of
working in turpentine and lumber camps.... [T]he Act was passed for the purpose of
disarming the negro laborers and to thereby reduce the unlawful homicides that were
prevalent in turpentine and saw-mill camps and to give the white citizens in sparsely settled
areas a better feeling of security. The statute was never intended to be applied to the white
population
- Watson v. Stone, 4 So. 2d 700, 703 (Fla. 1941) (Buford, J., concurring).

The real truth of the matter is that gun control has hurt blacks more over the history of the United States than expansive gun rights have. Do you think that the Southern plantation owners could have maintained control over their slaves if the slaves had the right to arm themselves?

Plus, the Second Amendment was written specifically with the following intent in mind:

Before a standing army can rule the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. -Noah Webster, 1787

That doesn't sound like the justification for arming runaway slave chasers, but for arming the entire populace to prevent a tyrannical government. Gee, I wonder why the author of TFA didn't include that quote. Or this quote from Patrick Henry, who he does quote:

Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.

His argument is weak sauce at best. The preservation of slavery may have been in the minds of some, but it's also plainly clear that it wasn't the only, or even the main reason: Joseph Story, commenting on the Second Amendment a bare 42 years after it was ratified, and within living memory of it (he was 12 when the Bill of Rights was adopted), had this to say about it:

§ 1889. The next amendment is "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.

"§ 1890. The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers.


There are three main reasons for the Second Amendment spelled out, and suppression slave rebellions is at the very best a subset of one of them ("domestic insurrections"), it was understood back then that it was also a check against "domestic usurpations of power by rulers".

Madison actually explicitly mentions that function of the militia (preventing a tyrannical government) in The Federalist Papers:

Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops.

He is saying that armed citizens could band together to suppress a tyrannical federal government, in the context of what was the state of the armed citizenry back then. The Anti-Federalists didn't disagree with Madison, they just wanted that state of affairs to continue, and the Second Amendment was drafted with that in mind.

It's the ultimate in checks and balances: No government can truly suppress an armed citizenry by force of arms, and so long as a democratically elected government doesn't significantly infringe upon the rights of the people, they have no reason to resort to arms to overthrow it.

Think of it as the 18th Century version of "Mutually Assured Destruction" between the government and the citizenry. It preserves a balance of power that has by and large, for the most part, worked for the last 200+ years. It's not perfect, and it has a cost, but unlike, say, Europe, we haven't been visited by the horrors of the 20th Century in part because of it. No ideology as wicked as those that caused well over 100 million deaths there could take root and flourish here because the people who it would seek to murder could collectively fight back in an effective manner.
 
2013-01-17 08:54:53 AM  
Demonization of the side you disagree with does not look any better when libs do it.

Calling someone a nut for wanting to keep a right granted to us in the outline of our nation because you choose to ignore said right does not make you superior, it makes you a coont.

It is a strange world in which when people choose to have the option to defend themselves, they are viewed as crazy.
 
GBB
2013-01-17 08:56:04 AM  

JohnCarter: Wow...did not see this one coming.

Being from the South, while not a History major I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express the other night, and I am fairly well read on things of the "Old" south and have never run across this hypothesis. This is truly an interesting claim. If this was in fact true then would not the 13th amendment have had a direct impact on the 2nd amendment?

If in fact the 2nd amendment was around because of slavery, once that was gone, the 2nd amendment should have been void. Shocked they missed that little bit of Constitutional tidy up in 1865


And you are on your way to discovering the difference between "the letter of the law" and "the intent of the law".
 
2013-01-17 08:56:38 AM  

skinink: There never would have been slavery in the first place if the slaves had guns.


Black people have a long and glorious history of hating other black people that continues to this day. See: Chicago.
 
2013-01-17 08:58:21 AM  
...and the sad part, a couple weeks or months from now someone is going to throw out this shiat in an argument as if it's reasonable and accurate.
 
2013-01-17 08:59:14 AM  
It't not officially a debate until it becomes racial. That way everyone is included. It's called eqaulity subby
 
2013-01-17 08:59:30 AM  
Pokemon is a slave trade and Pikachu is the slave master.
 
2013-01-17 08:59:43 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: Is it a living document or is it not a living document?

The 2nd Amendment doesn't mean those things now. It means that every American (with certain exceptions) has the right to own a gun.

It has nothing to do with slavery today.


Perhaps an updated definition of 'gun' is required.
 
2013-01-17 09:00:09 AM  
people opposed to the constitution are the biggest pieces of shiat to ever exist. We have the right to bear arms so that we can oppose the government when it is necessary. Don't be nancies.
 
2013-01-17 09:00:16 AM  

ModernLuddite: Pokemon is a slave trade and Pikachu is the slave master.


Does that make Meowth a house cat?
 
2013-01-17 09:01:03 AM  

Harry Freakstorm: The President should announce that the findings show that the Reagan Revolution is an abject failure and the state should return to the job of caring for it's crazies.


That wasn't Reagan. It started under Kennedy and gained rapid momentum in the 1970's. Reagan was at best at the very tail end of deinstitutionalization in the US.
 
2013-01-17 09:01:05 AM  

joness0154: encyclopediaplushuman: Gun nuts disconnect in my mind the second "well-regulated" is read. Fark Scalia, the framers didn't put that in for no reason.

And gun control advocates skip over the whole "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms..."

It says people. Not soldiers, militiamen, etc. When 'people' is used throughout the rest of the Constitution it refers to the citizens/residents of the country...why would it be any different in the 2nd Amendment?


Touche, but personally I'm for the happy medium between no guns and gun-crazy. Decent regulation to reduce crazies and some (not all, because I know a certain limit of black market) criminals getting a hold of guns while not restricting them completely.

/reasonable position
//thus I am overlooked
 
Displayed 50 of 370 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report