Fervor for the Second Amendment Rooted in Slave Patrols

[daleko]

Sept 30, 2022 17:43:45 GMT -5 Walter said:

Sept 30, 2022 16:09:46 GMT -5 daleko said:

What are you talking about?

What I believe is corralling the colored slaves wasn't the genesis of the 2nd.

It wasn't the only or perhaps the first reason for it, but it most certainly was a factor. After all, one of the reasons state militias existed at all in slave states was to put down slave rebellions. So obviously it played a part, though not the only part.

That's the story being expanded in the woke today but there is no historical record that supports that position. The 2nd was a was established in a time economic troubles for the Union, a paltry defense org and a wild and untamed future. Guns were life. Self defense was life. And the tyrannical rule of the Brits, read central gov and control by, was still fresh. The importance of Colored business assets was clearly on the wane in 1791. They were close to not worth the trouble to maintain, close to being sold off. The GIN changed all of that. Enforcement of laws was is its infancy, a fear of a tyrannical government still fresh, an invasion by a foreign power real and an acceptance of a right to self defense as necessary for the individual to survive against men and animals. And a real understanding that they were individual states united in the Americas, who may need to protect their individual priorities.

[Walter]

Oct 1, 2022 11:24:25 GMT -5 daleko said:

Sept 30, 2022 17:43:45 GMT -5 Walter said:

It wasn't the only or perhaps the first reason for it, but it most certainly was a factor. After all, one of the reasons state militias existed at all in slave states was to put down slave rebellions. So obviously it played a part, though not the only part.

That's the story being expanded in the woke today but there is no historical record that supports that position. The 2nd was a was established in a time economic troubles for the Union, a paltry defense org and a wild and untamed future. Guns were life. Self defense was life. And the tyrannical rule of the Brits, read central gov and control by, was still fresh. The importance of Colored business assets was clearly on the wane in 1791. They were close to not worth the trouble to maintain, close to being sold off. The GIN changed all of that. Enforcement of laws was is its infancy, a fear of a tyrannical government still fresh, an invasion by a foreign power real and an acceptance of a right to self defense as necessary for the individual to survive against men and animals. And a real understanding that they were individual states united in the Americas, who may need to protect their individual priorities.

..'individual priorities' such as the institution of slavery. Mention permeates the founding documents of the need to defend against domestic insurrection. Clearly, one of those threats was of uprisings of the enslaved, (as John Brown clumsily tested a half century later).

If there is no historical basis for that threat, then explain why blacks, even free ones, were denied their 2nd A right to bear arms by the various states. Of what threat did they fear with such laws?

[DrSchadenfreude]

Sept 30, 2022 23:04:47 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

Sept 30, 2022 22:24:59 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

You're dead wrong again, Harry, as usual.   What is cut-and-pasted in my history commentary above?  Do tell.

Did you forget that I graduated magna cum laude from Brown with a major in American Studies, before attending Harvard Medical School?

You’re called the Ivy League Idiot for good reason.

Still waiting for Harry-the-Lying-Chicken to tell us what was cut-and-pasted in my commentary he "responded" to above.

Harry?  Cat got your tongue?

[daleko]

Oct 1, 2022 13:10:06 GMT -5 Walter said:

Oct 1, 2022 11:24:25 GMT -5 daleko said:

That's the story being expanded in the woke today but there is no historical record that supports that position. The 2nd was a was established in a time economic troubles for the Union, a paltry defense org and a wild and untamed future. Guns were life. Self defense was life. And the tyrannical rule of the Brits, read central gov and control by, was still fresh. The importance of Colored business assets was clearly on the wane in 1791. They were close to not worth the trouble to maintain, close to being sold off. The GIN changed all of that. Enforcement of laws was is its infancy, a fear of a tyrannical government still fresh, an invasion by a foreign power real and an acceptance of a right to self defense as necessary for the individual to survive against men and animals. And a real understanding that they were individual states united in the Americas, who may need to protect their individual priorities.

..'individual priorities' such as the institution of slavery. Mention permeates the founding documents of the need to defend against domestic insurrection. Clearly, one of those threats was of uprisings of the enslaved, (as John Brown clumsily tested a half century later).

If there is no historical basis for that threat, then explain why blacks, even free ones, were denied their 2nd A right to bear arms by the various states. Of what threat did they fear with such laws?

In 1791 you really what to discuss what or how Coloreds were considered? No historical basis.

[Walter]

Oct 2, 2022 21:32:07 GMT -5 daleko said:

Oct 1, 2022 13:10:06 GMT -5 Walter said:

..'individual priorities' such as the institution of slavery. Mention permeates the founding documents of the need to defend against domestic insurrection. Clearly, one of those threats was of uprisings of the enslaved, (as John Brown clumsily tested a half century later).

If there is no historical basis for that threat, then explain why blacks, even free ones, were denied their 2nd A right to bear arms by the various states. Of what threat did they fear with such laws?

In 1791 you really what to discuss what or how Coloreds were considered? No historical basis.

No? I just gave you one. Slave rebellions occurred. State militias put them down. That is a plain fact. Passing laws forbidding possession of firearms by blacks was a solution to the threat. It is 'historical basis' staring you in the face.

[daleko]

Oct 3, 2022 7:49:56 GMT -5 Walter said:

Oct 2, 2022 21:32:07 GMT -5 daleko said:

In 1791 you really what to discuss what or how Coloreds were considered? No historical basis.

No? I just gave you one. Slave rebellions occurred. State militias put them down. That is a plain fact. Passing laws forbidding possession of firearms by blacks was a solution to the threat. It is 'historical basis' staring you in the face.

No historical evidence. 50,000 free Coloreds V 700,000 Slaves. V US pop of 4,000,000. .0125. Slaves had no rights, weren't even considered human, were nothing more than owned property, machinery and in 1791 may not be worth the asset investment, given the market they were used in had tanked. Even the free Coloreds were not highly considered or even recognized, ftmp. Slaves? Equipment to be bought and sold and treated, as their owner desired. Because they were owned, there was no need to apply a law, that applied to human citizens. They had no rights. There was no ASPCA to protect them. Any use of firearms was a byproduct, a tool, not the reason. This is an example of starting w a conclusion and working backwards to create a point in an attempt to distort the original intent. 

[Walter]

Oct 5, 2022 12:09:32 GMT -5 daleko said:

Oct 3, 2022 7:49:56 GMT -5 Walter said:

No? I just gave you one. Slave rebellions occurred. State militias put them down. That is a plain fact. Passing laws forbidding possession of firearms by blacks was a solution to the threat. It is 'historical basis' staring you in the face.

No historical evidence. 50,000 free Coloreds V 700,000 Slaves. V US pop of 4,000,000. .0125. Slaves had no rights, weren't even considered human, were nothing more than owned property, machinery and in 1791 may not be worth the asset investment, given the market they were used in had tanked. Even the free Coloreds were not highly considered or even recognized, ftmp. Slaves? Equipment to be bought and sold and treated, as their owner desired. Because they were owned, there was no need to apply a law, that applied to human citizens. They had no rights. There was no ASPCA to protect them. Any use of firearms was a byproduct, a tool, not the reason. This is an example of starting w a conclusion and working backwards to create a point in an attempt to distort the original intent. 

...and that is precisely what you are doing. Starting with a conclusion and working backwards.

1. Is there any danger in allowing your chattel to be armed? If so, describe that danger. And if there is no danger then explain why laws were passed forbidding it.
2. Explain the logic of ensuring that your chattel remains illiterate. What is the danger associated with literacy?

Face it. There was fear about the ability to control slaves. There had been slave revolts in Jamaica and other Carribean islands in the 1730s, and the news of such things concerned slave owners, hence the actions noted above.
It is not illogical to expect that slave-holding states would consider a wide variety of laws aimed at controlling the slave population. A declaration of the right to bear arms and form militias to that end would make sense if there was fear of abolitionists passing federal laws in the new nation that outlawed the militias which could be the first (and perhaps only) line of defense against slave revolts.

Again, I'm not suggesting it was the only reason, but I am saying it was definitely one of the reasons.

[daleko]

Oct 5, 2022 12:35:51 GMT -5 Walter said:

Oct 5, 2022 12:09:32 GMT -5 daleko said:

No historical evidence. 50,000 free Coloreds V 700,000 Slaves. V US pop of 4,000,000. .0125. Slaves had no rights, weren't even considered human, were nothing more than owned property, machinery and in 1791 may not be worth the asset investment, given the market they were used in had tanked. Even the free Coloreds were not highly considered or even recognized, ftmp. Slaves? Equipment to be bought and sold and treated, as their owner desired. Because they were owned, there was no need to apply a law, that applied to human citizens. They had no rights. There was no ASPCA to protect them. Any use of firearms was a byproduct, a tool, not the reason. This is an example of starting w a conclusion and working backwards to create a point in an attempt to distort the original intent. 

...and that is precisely what you are doing. Starting with a conclusion and working backwards.

1. Is there any danger in allowing your chattel to be armed? If so, describe that danger. And if there is no danger then explain why laws were passed forbidding it.
2. Explain the logic of ensuring that your chattel remains illiterate. What is the danger associated with literacy?

Face it. There was fear about the ability to control slaves. There had been slave revolts in Jamaica and other Carribean islands in the 1730s, and the news of such things concerned slave owners, hence the actions noted above.
It is not illogical to expect that slave-holding states would consider a wide variety of laws aimed at controlling the slave population. A declaration of the right to bear arms and form militias to that end would make sense if there was fear of abolitionists passing federal laws in the new nation that outlawed the militias which could be the first (and perhaps only) line of defense against slave revolts.

Again, I'm not suggesting it was the only reason, but I am saying it was definitely one of the reasons.

Actually, I'm not. There is no historical evidence and you resemble Willie's discussions on 9/11. In 1791 they had absolute control. The Slaves were just that. They could do as they pleased w their industrial machinery. They were not considered human, there was no ASPCA. Any by-product of the use of FA, as tools, was just that.

And there was zero discussion or fear of GC, absent a Fed over-reach. The States United In The Americas didn't want another version of England.

[Walter]

Oct 5, 2022 12:53:53 GMT -5 daleko said:

Oct 5, 2022 12:35:51 GMT -5 Walter said:

...and that is precisely what you are doing. Starting with a conclusion and working backwards.

1. Is there any danger in allowing your chattel to be armed? If so, describe that danger. And if there is no danger then explain why laws were passed forbidding it.
2. Explain the logic of ensuring that your chattel remains illiterate. What is the danger associated with literacy?

Face it. There was fear about the ability to control slaves. There had been slave revolts in Jamaica and other Carribean islands in the 1730s, and the news of such things concerned slave owners, hence the actions noted above.
It is not illogical to expect that slave-holding states would consider a wide variety of laws aimed at controlling the slave population. A declaration of the right to bear arms and form militias to that end would make sense if there was fear of abolitionists passing federal laws in the new nation that outlawed the militias which could be the first (and perhaps only) line of defense against slave revolts.

Again, I'm not suggesting it was the only reason, but I am saying it was definitely one of the reasons.

Actually, I'm not. There is no historical evidence and you resemble Willie's discussions on 9/11. In 1791 they had absolute control. The Slaves were just that. They could do as they pleased w their industrial machinery. They were not considered human, there was no ASPCA. Any by-product of the use of FA, as tools, was just that.

And there was zero discussion or fear of GC, absent a Fed over-reach. The States United In The Americas didn't want another version of England.

Uh...what is 'GC'?
And again...if you are right and there was 'absolute control', then why were laws passed forbidding all the things that endangered control of the slave population long before The Constitution was ever written?

[daleko]

Oct 5, 2022 14:51:47 GMT -5 Walter said:

Oct 5, 2022 12:53:53 GMT -5 daleko said:

Actually, I'm not. There is no historical evidence and you resemble Willie's discussions on 9/11. In 1791 they had absolute control. The Slaves were just that. They could do as they pleased w their industrial machinery. They were not considered human, there was no ASPCA. Any by-product of the use of FA, as tools, was just that.

And there was zero discussion or fear of GC, absent a Fed over-reach. The States United In The Americas didn't want another version of England.

Uh...what is 'GC'?
And again...if you are right and there was 'absolute control', then why were laws passed forbidding all the things that endangered control of the slave population long before The Constitution was ever written?

Again, no historical evidence and you want me to explain why something wasn't. 

[Walter]

Oct 5, 2022 14:58:57 GMT -5 daleko said:

Oct 5, 2022 14:51:47 GMT -5 Walter said:

Uh...what is 'GC'?
And again...if you are right and there was 'absolute control', then why were laws passed forbidding all the things that endangered control of the slave population long before The Constitution was ever written?

Again, no historical evidence and you want me to explain why something wasn't. 

I gave you concrete things that happened and asked you why it happened. That ain't something that wasn't.
Here's another we discussed earlier:

Dunmore's Proclamation is a historical document signed on November 7, 1775, by John Murray, 4th Earl of Dunmore, royal governor of the British Colony of Virginia. The proclamation declared martial law[1] and promised freedom for slaves of American revolutionaries who left their owners and joined the royal forces, becoming Black Loyalists. Most relevant historians agree that the proclamation was chiefly designed for practical and militaristic reasons rather than moral reasons, such as humanitarianism.[2][3]

Formally proclaimed on November 15, its publication prompted between 800 and 2000 slaves (from both patriot and loyalist owners) to run away and enlist with Dunmore.

It also raised a furor among Virginia's slave-owning elites (again of both political persuasions), to whom the possibility of a slave rebellion was a major fear.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunmore%27s_Proclamation

If a slave rebellion was a 'major fear', then it makes sense to ensure that a new Constitution contained language that aided in combatting such a future rebellion. The 2nd A did just that.

[dilligaf]

Oct 1, 2022 13:10:06 GMT -5 Walter said:

Oct 1, 2022 11:24:25 GMT -5 daleko said:

That's the story being expanded in the woke today but there is no historical record that supports that position. The 2nd was a was established in a time economic troubles for the Union, a paltry defense org and a wild and untamed future. Guns were life. Self defense was life. And the tyrannical rule of the Brits, read central gov and control by, was still fresh. The importance of Colored business assets was clearly on the wane in 1791. They were close to not worth the trouble to maintain, close to being sold off. The GIN changed all of that. Enforcement of laws was is its infancy, a fear of a tyrannical government still fresh, an invasion by a foreign power real and an acceptance of a right to self defense as necessary for the individual to survive against men and animals. And a real understanding that they were individual states united in the Americas, who may need to protect their individual priorities.

..'individual priorities' such as the institution of slavery. Mention permeates the founding documents of the need to defend against domestic insurrection. Clearly, one of those threats was of uprisings of the enslaved, (as John Brown clumsily tested a half century later).

If there is no historical basis for that threat, then explain why blacks, even free ones, were denied their 2nd A right to bear arms by the various states. Of what threat did they fear with such laws?

Why were blacks denied the right to vote?

Why were blacks segregated in the military. even in WWII?
The 2nd Amendment has NOTHING to do with racial discrimination.  Sorry.

Show me a state after the Civil War that denied blacks the right to bear arms.   How do you explain the blacks who fought FOR the slave states with guns?

Show me where the 2nd Amendment denied blacks the right to bear arms.

You and PsychoTheRapist are totally wrong.

The Constitution allows us the means to overthrow our own gov't if it becomes a tyranny.   Guess where Demonrats want to lead our gov't.

EDIT: Let's make this real, shall we?  
The black population of the United States is less than 14%.

IF blacks wanted to start a race war, and IF every one of them had a gun, they would still never win.  It would be racial suicide.
You Demonrats need to stop the racist division you practice.

[daleko]

Oct 5, 2022 17:56:02 GMT -5 Walter said:

Oct 5, 2022 14:58:57 GMT -5 daleko said:

Again, no historical evidence and you want me to explain why something wasn't. 

I gave you concrete things that happened and asked you why it happened. That ain't something that wasn't.
Here's another we discussed earlier:

Dunmore's Proclamation is a historical document signed on November 7, 1775, by John Murray, 4th Earl of Dunmore, royal governor of the British Colony of Virginia. The proclamation declared martial law[1] and promised freedom for slaves of American revolutionaries who left their owners and joined the royal forces, becoming Black Loyalists. Most relevant historians agree that the proclamation was chiefly designed for practical and militaristic reasons rather than moral reasons, such as humanitarianism.[2][3]

Formally proclaimed on November 15, its publication prompted between 800 and 2000 slaves (from both patriot and loyalist owners) to run away and enlist with Dunmore.

It also raised a furor among Virginia's slave-owning elites (again of both political persuasions), to whom the possibility of a slave rebellion was a major fear.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunmore%27s_Proclamation

If a slave rebellion was a 'major fear', then it makes sense to ensure that a new Constitution contained language that aided in combatting such a future rebellion. The 2nd A did just that.

You should now understand Willie's train of thought re 911 better. It's what you are using. A byproduct is not necessarily the motivation or even a consideration.

[Walter]

Oct 6, 2022 9:59:49 GMT -5 daleko said:

Oct 5, 2022 17:56:02 GMT -5 Walter said:

I gave you concrete things that happened and asked you why it happened. That ain't something that wasn't.
Here's another we discussed earlier:

Dunmore's Proclamation is a historical document signed on November 7, 1775, by John Murray, 4th Earl of Dunmore, royal governor of the British Colony of Virginia. The proclamation declared martial law[1] and promised freedom for slaves of American revolutionaries who left their owners and joined the royal forces, becoming Black Loyalists. Most relevant historians agree that the proclamation was chiefly designed for practical and militaristic reasons rather than moral reasons, such as humanitarianism.[2][3]

Formally proclaimed on November 15, its publication prompted between 800 and 2000 slaves (from both patriot and loyalist owners) to run away and enlist with Dunmore.

It also raised a furor among Virginia's slave-owning elites (again of both political persuasions), to whom the possibility of a slave rebellion was a major fear.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunmore%27s_Proclamation

If a slave rebellion was a 'major fear', then it makes sense to ensure that a new Constitution contained language that aided in combatting such a future rebellion. The 2nd A did just that.

You should now understand Willie's train of thought re 911 better. It's what you are using. A byproduct is not necessarily the motivation or even a consideration.

You asked for some historical basis. I provided some. You refuse to consider it. <shrug>
Who's playing Willie-9/11 again?

[daleko]

Oct 6, 2022 10:18:18 GMT -5 Walter said:

Oct 6, 2022 9:59:49 GMT -5 daleko said:

You should now understand Willie's train of thought re 911 better. It's what you are using. A byproduct is not necessarily the motivation or even a consideration.

You asked for some historical basis. I provided some. You refuse to consider it. <shrug>
Who's playing Willie-9/11 again?

Still a byproduct. No different than animals will die when shot, intruders will die when shot, Brits will die, if they return as combatants, when shot, Feds will die if they overreach the States, when shot. No factual discussion that it was under consideration, when accepted as a foundational principle.