I need some help here. I am writing responses defending the Second Amendment on local blogs here in Boston. It is a exhausting endeavor, as you might imagine. Massachusetts, in my opinion, is too far gone to save. The Liberals here are complete Statists.
Here is where I need help. I get this argument all the time on the blogs used against me, and I wanted to get your opinion about it. What would you say? Is it correct? Does it matter?
“It’s really important here to get the history of the Second Amendment correct. It was NOT inserted to arm the population against their government. There was concern in the Southern states that the new Federal government would move against slavery someday. The Southern states needed to be assured that their STATE militias would not be disarmed or federalized because those militias/slave patrols were a critical component of the system necessary to keep a slave population under control. This was all a very public argument at the time, the 1790′s. Check the Federalist Papers, the Anti-Federalist Papers, and the writings of James Madison, its author, George Mason, and Patrick Henry, etc. This is not new stuff.”
How would you proceed? Thanks.
KM says:
Write Mike Church, XM radio host – he will give you all you need. Google his radio program/website for contact info.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
22nd January 2013 at 10:21 am
ThePessimisticChemist says:
They are equating the second amendment with slavery.
How droll.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
7 
0
22nd January 2013 at 10:24 am
Bostonbob says:
Sorry this is a copy and paste , but it is the best I can find on short notice. They will probably argue that Jefferson had slaves, but that does not appear to be the case.
Thank you,
Bob.
“I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every
form of tyranny over the mind of man.” –Thomas Jefferson
——————————————————————————–
A Well-Organized and Armed Militia
“For a people who are free and who mean to remain so, a well-organized and armed militia is their best security. It is, therefore, incumbent on us at every meeting [of Congress] to revise the condition of the militia and to ask ourselves if it is prepared to repel a powerful enemy at every point of our territories exposed to invasion… Congress alone have power to produce a uniform state of preparation in this great organ of defense. The interests which they so deeply feel in their own and their country’s security will present this as among the most important objects of their deliberation.”
–Thomas Jefferson: 8th Annual Message, 1808. ME 3:482
“None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army. To keep ours armed and disciplined is therefore at all times important.” –Thomas Jefferson, 1803.
“It is more a subject of joy [than of regret] that we have so few of the desperate characters which compose modern regular armies. But it proves more forcibly the necessity of obliging every citizen to be a soldier; this was the case with the Greeks and Romans and must be that of every free State. Where there is no oppression there can be no pauper hirelings.” –Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1813.
“A well-disciplined militia, our best reliance in peace and for the first moments of war till regulars may relieve them, I deem [one of] the essential principles of our Government, and consequently [one of] those which ought to shape its administration.”
–Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural, 1801.
“[The] governor [is] constitutionally the commander of the militia of the State, that is to say, of every man in it able to bear arms.” –Thomas Jefferson to A. L. C. Destutt de Tracy, 1811.
“Uncertain as we must ever be of the particular point in our circumference where an enemy may choose to invade us, the only force which can be ready at every point and competent to oppose them, is the body of neighboring citizens as formed into a militia. On these, collected from the parts most convenient, in numbers proportioned to the invading foe, it is best to rely, not only to meet the first attack, but if it threatens to be permanent, to maintain the defence until regulars may be engaged to relieve them.”
–Thomas Jefferson: 1st Annual Message, 1801. ME 3:334
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
5 
0
22nd January 2013 at 10:38 am
TC says:
Fucking revisionist bullshit. Here’s my boy TJ dropping some knowledge for those fools…
“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” -Thomas Jefferson
“The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first” .-Thomas Jefferson
“The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.” -Thomas Jefferson
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
18 
1
22nd January 2013 at 10:39 am
ThePessimisticChemist says:
“It is more a subject of joy [than of regret] that we have so few of the desperate characters which compose modern regular armies. But it proves more forcibly the necessity of obliging every citizen to be a soldier; this was the case with the Greeks and Romans and must be that of every free State. Where there is no oppression there can be no pauper hirelings.”
–Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1813.
Perhaps my favorite quote out of all of the ones you listed (though Jefferson has a lot of good ones).
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
22nd January 2013 at 10:44 am
SV says:
There is some good info here, tracing the 2nd Amendment back to the English Bill of Rights:
http://saf.org/LawReviews/Stearns1.htm
Other good links:
http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/RKBA/2ndMeaning.html
http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndfqu.html
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
22nd January 2013 at 10:46 am
Gorilla says:
Slavery had nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment. If slavery was the singular reason, why did the North support the 2nd Amendment? They had few, if any, slaves and were not fans of the “curious” institution. Slavery was already an important part of the Southern economy, which made it very dangerous to touch, politically, during the writing of the Constitution. The antifederalist movement and the fear of central authority were strong enough, the Founders had to work hard to show the government was not going to swoop in and start usurping state powers. That’s why we had the Bill of Rights in the first place The Constitution almost didn’t make it. They were working hard to create consensus among the states-so how could they hope to address abolition? Slavery had nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment. I have to ask-why would they put in an amendment to the Constitution that dealt only with a problem that effected a small number of Americans? All the other Amendments deal with civil rights-why not the 2nd? Can you really separate the right to bear arms and defend yourself from the right to speak and meet freely, not have troops in your home, and the right to be protected from self-incrimination, etc?
Protecting the US from the British, the Indians, and any other threat was important. The militia was considered the strength of the US, too. Look at Jefferson’s ideas on how to defend the US. He HATED the idea of a standing military. Many of the Founders, Jefferson primary among them, hated the concept of a professional military because they saw it as the driving force of any tyranny. They refused to build a Navy until just before 1812 because they saw a professional navy as a force begging to be used in conquest. In fact, Jefferson initiated a gunboat building program with the intention of swarming any attacker with swarms of small 1-2 gun boats. (it failed) Only the War of 1812 really established the need for a professional military. To Republicans, like Jefferson, the strength of the nation was in the people, in the militia. Citizen soldiers, like the heroes who fought in the Revolution, were the real measure of freedom, so it makes perfect sense to enshrine the GOD-GIVEN right to bear arms. Remember, it was our armed civilians that kept the Japanese afraid of invading us in WWII.
Additionally, no nation could remain free that feared its citenzenry. These were men who believed in personal freedom. Even had someone murdered a school full of children with guns in the 18th Century, no one would have recommended gun control. They would have recommended hanging the offender.
Furthermore, the US was a dangerous place of wild animals, Indian raids, and marauding foreign powers. Keep in mind, French, Spanish, and British military forces and privateers attacked America and American ships before and after the Revolution. Owning weapons wasn’t just an entertaining privilege-it was a vital necessity.
Finally, even though the libtards like to crow about how the 2nd Amendment serves no purpose, look at the story of Athens Georgia, or “The Battle of Athens,” where returning WWII veterans armed themselves and liberated their town from a corrupt sheriff who was attempting to rig an election. At the time, they stated they had fought for freedom in Europe, only to return to a home that wasn’t free. And they won.
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
22nd January 2013 at 11:05 am
flash says:
“This is not new stuff.”
Well, it’s damn new to me.Ask for references ‘cuz I’d sure love to read ‘em.
BTW, the Second Amendment argument is irrelevant to my God-given natural right to self-defense and the defense of those I love.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
13 
0
22nd January 2013 at 11:11 am
johnnyBoy says:
Gorilla says:
Slavery had nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment. If slavery was the singular reason, why did the North support the 2nd Amendment? They had few, if any, slaves and were not fans of the “curious” institution.
Really? I stopped reading your coomnet after that tidbit of nonsense.
http://www.slavenorth.com/slavenorth.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation_Proclamation
The Proclamation applied in only ten states that were still in rebellion in 1863, and thus did not cover the nearly 500,000 slaves in the slave-holding border states (Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland or Delaware) which were Union states
Like or Dislike:
3 
1
22nd January 2013 at 11:20 am
flash says:
sorry, johnnyboy was I.
a primer for the confused on secession , Lincoln and the War Between the States.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo-arch.html
Like or Dislike:
3 
1
22nd January 2013 at 11:22 am
Beyond says:
That argument is completely fabricated. They are trying to rewrite history. Here are the 3 primary facts that you should present to crush your opponent:
1. Before the United States Constitution or Bill of Rights existed, most of the thirteen original states
had clauses in their constitutions protecting the right to keep and bear arms, including the northern states.
2. Three predominant arms clauses in state constitutions existed before the Bill of Rights was ratified (for the mentally inept liberal, these are all northern states).
Pennsylvania (1776): That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of
themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to
liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict
subordination, to, and governed by, the civil power. (Simplified in 1790 to read “The
right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be
questioned.”)
Vermont (1777): That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of
themselves and the State – and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to
liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict
subordination to and governed by the civil power.
Massachusetts (1780): The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the
common defense. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought
not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall
always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.
3. Five states that ratified the Constitution sent demands for a Bill of Rights to Congress. All of
these demands included a right to keep and bear arms. Three of the five were northern states. The relevant parts of these written demands are:
New Hampshire: Twelfth[:] Congress shall never disarm any Citizen unless such as are
or have been in Actual Rebellion.
Virginia: Seventeenth, That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well
regulated Militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper,
natural and safe defense of a free State. That standing armies in time of peace are
dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and
protection of the Community will admit; and that in all cases the military should be under
strict subordination to and governed by the Civil power.
New York: That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well regulated
Militia, including the body of the People capable of bearing Arms, is the proper, natural
and safe defense of a free State; That the Militia should not be subject to Martial Law
except in time of War, Rebellion or Insurrection. That Standing Armies in time of Peace
are dangerous to Liberty, and ought not to be kept up, except in Cases of necessity; and
that at all times, the Military should be under strict Subordination to the civil Power.
North Carolina: Almost identical to Virginia’s demand, but with, “the body of the people,
trained to arms,” instead of, “the body of the people trained to arms.”
Rhode Island: Almost identical to Virginia’s demand, but with, “the body of the people
capable of bearing arms,” instead of, “the body of the people trained to arms,” and with a,
“militia shall not be subject to martial law,” proviso as in New York’s.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
9 
0
22nd January 2013 at 11:42 am
Hope@ZeroKelvin says:
@Yojimbo: You are likely wasting your time trying to defend the 2A in Massholechusetts, sorry.
It is so ironic that you have to do so in the place where “the shot heard round the world’ was fired, heh. Does your liberal audience even appreciate that? Probably not, but then, historical reality has never been a libprog strong suit.
One huge reason why Lexington happened is because Thomas Gage (the British general) was trying to enforce the Crown’s edict to inventory and seize the Colonials muskets, powder and ball. Those weapons were the equivalent of today’s AR 15 with a scope and 30 round mag. Gage had a force of 700 and engaged the Colonials at Lexington and then Concord.
THAT, ie weapons confiscation, is one of the key points that the entire Revolutionary War was about. Coming after all the other provocations, it was definitely the spark that lit the powder keg! Without that action, it is entirely likely that we would still be part of the British Empire.
The other argument is to bring up the fates of all people first disarmed by their governments then killed by them, somewhere between 170 -200 MILLION people in the 20th century alone.
Ask your audience if they really trust a fed.gov that wiped out the Native Americans in the 18th & 19th centuries, sent Japanese Americans to camps in WW2, burned alive 78 American citizens in Waco, killed unindicted people at Ruby Ridge and sends thousands of drone attacks to kill people all over the world.
Let me know what responses you get, heh.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
15 
0
22nd January 2013 at 11:42 am
Eddie says:
Nice post , Beyond.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
22nd January 2013 at 12:04 pm
Bostonbob says:
This may have been posted here before. MA had tough guys at one time, this was right up the street in Lexington/Arlington, now two horrendously liberal towns, Samuel is rolling over in his grave.
Badass of the Week.
Samuel Whittemore
Interestingly enough for a man who is now famous throughout Massachusetts for his unbreakable determination to violently kill British people at all costs, Samuel Whittemore was born in England, and faithfully served the British Crown for nearly five decades of professional military service. Born in 1695, just 75 years after the first Pilgrims landed on Plymouth Rock, the stone-cold hardass who would be made a state hero of Massachusetts was first unleashed on colonial America in the 1740s while serving as a Captain in His Majesty’s Dragoons – a badass unit of elite British cavalrymen much-feared across the globe for their ability to impale people on lance-points and then pump their already-dead bodies full of gigantic pistol ammunition that more closely resembled baseballs than the sort of rounds you see packed into Beretta magazines these days. Fighting the French in Canada during the War of Austrian Succession (a conflict that was known here in the colonies as King George’s War because seriously WTF did colonial Americans care about Austrian succession), Whittemore was part of the British contingent that assaulted the frozen shores of Nova Scotia and beat the shit out of the French at their stronghold of Louisbourg in 1745. The 50 year-old cavalry officer went into battle galloping at the head of a company of rifle-toting horsemen, and emerged from the shouldering flames of a thoroughly ass-humped Louisbourg holding a bitchin’ ornate longsword he had wrenched from the lifeless hands of a French officer who had, in Whittemore’s words, “died suddenly”. The French would eventually manage to snake Louisbourg back from the Brits, so thirteen years later, during the Seven Years’ War (a conflict that was known here in the colonies as the French and Indian War because WTF we were fighting the French and the Indians, and also because it lasted nine years instead of seven), Whittemore had to return to his old stomping grounds of Louisburg and ruthlessly beat it into submission once again. Serving under the able command fellow badass British commander James Wolfe, a man who earned his reputation by commanding a line of riflemen who held their lines against a frothing-at-the-mouth horde of psychotic, sword-swinging William Wallace motherfuckers in Scotland (this is a story I intend to tell at a later date), Whittemore once again pummeled the French retarded and stole all of their shit he could get his hands on. He served valiantly during the Second Siege of Louisbourg, pounding the poor city into rubble a second time in an epic bloodbath would mark the beginning of the end for France’s Atlantic colonies – Quebec would fall shortly thereafter, and the French would be chased out of Canada forever. So you can thank Whittemore for that, if you are inclined to do so.
Beating Frenchmen down with a cavalry saber at the age of 64 is pretty cool and all, but Whittemore still wasn’t done doing awesome shit in the name of King George the Third and His Loyal Colonies. Four years after busting up the French for the second time in two decades he led troops against Chief Pontiac in the bloody Indian Wars that raged across the Great Lakes region. Never one to back down from an up-close-and-personal fistfight, it was during a particularly nasty bout of hand-to-hand combat he came into possession of another totally sweet war trophy – an awesome pair of matched dueling pistols he had taken from the body of a warrior he’d just finished bayoneting or sabering or whatever.
After serving in three American wars before America was even a country, Whittemore decided the colonies were pretty damn radical, so he settled down in Massachusetts, married two different women (though not at the same time), had eight kids, and built a house out of the carcasses of bears he’d killed and mutilated with his own two hands. Or something like that.
Now, all of this shit is pretty god damned impressive, but interestingly none of it is actually what Samuel Whittemore is best known for. No, his distinction as a national hero instead comes from a fateful day in mid-April 1775, when the British colonies in the New World decided they weren’t going to take any more of King George’s bullshit and decided to get their American Revolution on. And you can be pretty damn sure that if there were asses to be kicked, Whittemore was going to be one of the men doing the kicking.
So one day a bunch of colonial malcontents got together, formed a battle line, and opened fire on a bunch of redcoats that were pissing them off with their silly Stamp Acts and whatnot. The Brits managed to beat back this militia force at the Battles of Lexington and Concord, but when they heard that a larger force of angry, rifle-toting colonials was headed their way, the English officers decided to march back to their headquarters and regroup. Along the way, they were hassled relentlessly by American militiamen with rifles and angry insults, though no group harassed them more ferociously than Captain Sam Whittemore. When the Redcoats went marching back through his hometown of Menotomy, this guy decided that he wasn’t going to let his advanced age stop him from doing some crazy shit and taking on an entire British army himself. The 80 year old Whittemore grabbed his rifle and ran outside:
Whittemore, by himself, with no backup, positioned himself behind a stone wall, waited in ambush, and then single-handedly engaged the entire British 47th Regiment of Foot with nothing more than his musket and the pure liquid anger coursing through his veins. His ambush had been successful – by this time this guy popped up liken top of him. He fired off his musket at point-blank range, busting the nearest guy so hard it nearly blew his red coat into the next dimension.
Now, when you’re using a firearm that takes 20 seconds to reload, it’s kind of hard to go all Leonard Funk on a platoon of enemy infantry, but damn it if Whittemore wasn’t going to try. With a company of Brits bearing down in him, he quick-drew his twin flintlock pistols and popped a couple of locks on them (caps hadn’t been invented yet, though I think the analogy still works pretty fucking well), busting another two Limeys a matching set of new assholes. Then he unsheathed the ornate French sword, and this 80-year-old madman stood his ground in hand-to-hand against a couple dozen trained soldiers, each of which was probably a quarter of his age.
As you can see from the picture, it didn’t work out so well. Whittemore was shot through the face by a 69-caliber bullet, knocked down, and bayonetted 13 times by motherfuckers. I’d like to imagine he wounded a couple more Englishmen who slipped or choked on his blood, though history only seems to credit him with three kills on three shots fired. The Brits, convinced that this man was sufficiently beat to shit, left him for dead kept on their death march back to base, harassed the entire way by Whittemore’s fellow militiamen.
Amazingly, however, Samuel Whittemore didn’t die. When his friends rushed out from their homes to check on his body, they found the half-dead, ultra-bloody octogenarian still trying to reload his weapon and seek vengeance. The dude actually survived the entire war, finally dying in 1793 at the age of 98 from extreme old age and awesomeness. A 2005 act of the Massachusetts legislature declared him an official state hero, and today he has one of the most badass historical markers of all time:
Links:
eral towns
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
12 
1
22nd January 2013 at 12:32 pm
Administrator says:
Shock Claim: “The New Litmus Test Of Leadership In The Military Is If They Will Fire On US Citizens Or Not”
Mac Slavo
January 22nd, 2013
SHTFplan.com
Had the following comments been made on a fringe corner of the internet most would dismiss them as outright conjecture. However, what you are about to read comes from one of the world’s foremost philanthropists, Jim Garrow, who has spent tens of millions of dollars of his own money to help over 35,000 Chinese baby girls from near certain death under China’s one-child-per-couple policy.
He was one of the 206 nominees for the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize, which was ultimately awarded to President Barack Obama.
Garrow, who has friends in high places, including the U.S. military, made a startling claim on his Facebook page Sunday, which if true, should leave no doubt about why the Obama administration is moving full force to seize firearms from law abiding Americans and why the US government’s law enforcement and security assets have been making preparations for years in anticipation of social breakdown and widespread civil unrest.
According to Garrow, the Obama administration has been rapidly retiring or re-assigning US military leaders based on a new ‘litmus test’ of their loyalty:
I have just been informed by a former senior military leader that Obama is using a new “litmus test” in determining who will stay and who must go in his military leaders. Get ready to explode folks.
“The new litmus test of leadership in the military is if they will fire on US citizens or not”.
Those who will not are being removed.
Dr. Jim Garrow – January 21, 2013
When pressed for the source of his information and asked why the senior military leader would not reveal his name, Garrow responded by saying, “I believe that the gentleman has done what he should and allowed all of us to sound the alarm.”
He revealed only that the man who shared this information, “is one of America’s foremost military heroes,” suggesting the source is a public figure.
Paul Joseph Watson of Infowars notes that this new ‘litmus test’ comes at a time when millions of Americans are already suspicious of the government’s motives behind a number of actions, including the most recent push to disarm the population:
Garrow’s claim is even more explosive given that the country is in the throes of a national debate about gun control, with gun rights advocates keen to insist that the founders put the second amendment in the Constitution primarily as a defense against government tyranny.
It also follows reports on Sunday that General James Mattis, head of the United States Central Command, “is being told to vacate his office several months earlier than planned.”
Would Jim Garrow put his reputation on the line by spreading a rumor or simply make this up to garner attention?
Or, is it possible that he does in fact have a high level military source who is privy to this information – someone who has himself been removed from his position because he didn’t pass the litmus test?
Should the Obama administration take Executive Actions against Americans in the event of a scenario where gun confiscation becomes reality or a collapse of our economic system leads to a complete meltdown of law and order on the streets of America, the administration would likely deploy military assets under martial law to subdue any uprisings or riots.
The only way this could be done is if military leaders are willing to command their subordinates to deploy against the American people and fire on them if necessary.
If Garrow’s claims are true, one can only shudder at the thought of what the end-game may be.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
12 
0
22nd January 2013 at 12:36 pm
Fred Hayek says:
There’s irony in some fool trying to argue that the second amendment was only a tool for slave owners. First of all, it’s not true. But if those people knew any history they would know that some of the first calls for gun control came in the post reconstruction south where the intent of gun control was to disarm blacks.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
7 
0
22nd January 2013 at 12:38 pm
TeresaE says:
@Admin, funny, my “conspiracy theorist” mind already called the Patraeus thing due to this.
Men at his level have ALWAYS had girls on the side. Most of the time their bosses looked the other way, cause hell, if the man’s wife puts up with it, why should we care?
Then, all of sudden, the general exposed for what they ALL (mostly) do.
I asked myself, why? Why now?
This “litmus” test made the most sense to me . Patraeus seemed to be a man that truly believed in his duty to the Constitution.
We can’t have that when we are going “forward.”
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
8 
0
22nd January 2013 at 2:06 pm
Ron says:
Its all about keeping the government in check. Owning a weapon to protect yourself and family or to hunt is just a normal thing that shouldn’t be infringed on.
The Lefty’s i see on tv make me sick with this,why do you need to own guns crap.Some even talk about how the government should collect all the guns,because they create trouble.My family watched the unarmed Jews get marched off to the death camp trains by a few armed soldiers
If you dont want to own a weapon to protect your family.You have that right.But dont ask me to give up mine.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
7 
0
22nd January 2013 at 2:21 pm
ferret says:
The “armed slaves” issue is historically correct – in the South. However, in the largely non-slavery North, the personal defense issue was just that – PERSONAL DEFENSE and, of course, providing for the family table. The average non-urban citizen knew very well from the experience with British troops as well as the French and Indian War that an unarmed person was, at best, a serf and, at worst, dead meat. And, it should not be forgotten that that goes for non-slave-owning Southern farmers and settlers as well. My family arrived in 1640 and there is no record of anyone in my family (including my great-grandfather who rode with Gen. Shelby) EVER owning a slave.
So, your philosophical opposition is somewhat less than half right but it grossly understates the character of the colonies and fledgeling states. Simply, the average citizen at the time just didn’t write learned tracts on the issue because he was busy protecting and providing for himself and his family but he damned sure knew the value of being armed, be it against animals, French, Indians, British troops or Loyalists.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
6 
0
22nd January 2013 at 2:38 pm
Riley says:
This is quick and dirty but this is a reasonably scholarly takedown of that arguement from a black oriented website: http://www.theroot.com/views/2nd-amendment-passed-protect-slavery-no
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
22nd January 2013 at 2:46 pm
Llpoh says:
The Supreme Court has already ruled on this crap.militia was deemed not the key compnent, but rather the bear arms was. The idea about slavery being the issue is horseshit. Fucking liberal shitf- for-brains assholes need a good tune-up.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
10 
0
22nd January 2013 at 3:14 pm
Dorkus Maximus says:
You’ll never be able to defend the second amendment to these people – they want it gone, period. They are tyrants who believe they will be part of the ruling class in the new socialist america. They don’t give two shits about dead school kids. They are OVERJOYED when there is a school shooting.
You need to call them out on their tyranny. Insult them. If you want a quote, I recommend Vlad Lenin’s reference to people like them as “useful idiots”
Like or Dislike:
4 
1
22nd January 2013 at 3:17 pm
Eddie says:
Nice thread. I’m getting a history lesson.
TeresaE
You were right on General Petraeus. I remember your comment at the time. +1
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
5 
0
22nd January 2013 at 3:56 pm
John A says:
Of course the Second Amendment has nothing to do with slavery. This couldn’t be let’s play the race card time could it?
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
22nd January 2013 at 4:17 pm
Brian says:
Here are the only references I can find in the Federalist Papers that relate to the right to bear arms. I got this list from jfpo.org, but I also did a search at the Founding Fathers site’s index of the Federalist Papers.
If someone makes a reference like the one shown above, but doesn’t bother to back it up, that’s just maddening.
A. The Federalist Papers, No. 28: Alexander Hamilton expressed that when a government betrays the people by amassing too much power and becoming tyrannical, the people have no choice but to exercise their original right of self-defense — to fight the government.[Halbrook, p. 67]
B. The Federalist Papers, No. 29: Alexander Hamilton explained that an armed citizenry was the best and only real defense against a standing army becoming large and oppressive. [Halbrook, p. 67]
C. The Federalist Papers, No. 46: James Madison contended that ultimate authority resides in the people, and that if the federal government got too powerful and overstepped its authority, then the people would develop plans of resistance and resort to arms. [Halbrook, p. 67]
D. There was no National Guard, and the Founders opposed anything but a very small national military. The phrase “well-regulated” means well-trained and disciplined — not “regulated” as we understand that term in the modern sense of bureaucratic regulation. [This meaning still can be found in the unabridged Oxford English Dictionary, 2d ed. 1989, Vol 13, p. 524, and Vol 20. p. 138.]
E. The Federalists promised that state governments and citizen militias would exist to make sure the federal military never became large or oppressive. To say that the National Guard replaces the notion of the militia runs contrary to what the Founders said and wrote.
F. The Third Amendment: Expressly restrains the federal government from building a standing army and infiltrating it among the people …and at the people’s expense … in times of peace. The Third Amendment runs against the idea of a permanent standing army or federalized National Guard in principle, if not by its words.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
6 
0
22nd January 2013 at 4:38 pm
BUCKHED says:
So the North wasn’t interested in the “Curious ” idea of slaves ….HORSE SHIT dude. The slave trade was started in the North and folks in the North were rewarded handsomely for their efforts .Rhode Island ( bless their puritan souls) controlled a large portion of the slave trade and most of it’s merchant vessels traded in slaves. Hell most of the Northern Colonies taxed the importation of slaves from time to time..
The circle of trade for slaves,molasses and other commodities drove the trade in New England with the Caribbean Area.
Please read a few books on the slave trade .
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
22nd January 2013 at 7:19 pm
Thunderbird says:
There are tyrants in this government that want to disarm us for their own sinister reasons. The second amendment was crafted by people that fought a tyrant. Even if there were no second amendment common sense and our inner spirit tells us if we give up our guns we would be sitting ducks. All we have to do is look at Mexico, Syria, Egypt, and other nations around the globe where the people are fighting mostly unarmed against tyrant governments that are slaughtering them.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
22nd January 2013 at 8:32 pm
Dave Doe says:
Say what you will, I don’t believe the rank and file of the US Military will ever fire on US Citizens. They will kill their officers first. See Vietnam and “Fragging”.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
22nd January 2013 at 9:13 pm
SSS says:
Yojimbo
The Loonie Lefties are hitting you with a bunch of red herrings, revisionist bullshit, and unsubstantiated, out-of-context quotes from sources such as the Federalist Papers. You’ve had plenty of excellent answers and help thus far, but I think Llpoh is on the right track re his comments about the Constitution. Hit ‘em with this.
“You can quote Thomas Jefferson and the Federalist Papers all you want, but IT IS TOTALLY IRRELEVANT AND DOES NOT MATTER. The so-called “people’s will” does not matter. What you think does not matter. The Supreme Court has already decided that the people have a right to keep and bear arms. That’s what matters. And it’s the ONLY thing that matters. Have a nice day.”
Then hit ‘em back with this.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
22nd January 2013 at 11:18 pm
Novista says:
Yojimbo
Don’t hit ‘em with facts, they are not reality oriented, just emotionally driven. So, give them a challenge. And here is the key point of effective gun control, the starting point:
First, disarm the drug cartels, professional and amateur criminals.
Next, disarm the police. Yes! With no criminal element to make them fear for their safety, they do not need firearms.
Still thinking about how to deal with the domestic military — but you might just run the first point by them. Ask them how it should be done.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
22nd January 2013 at 1:18 am
AKAnon says:
Along the same line of thought as Novista: Who (why) is against law-abiding citizens being armed?
1) Criminals. Besides simply being common sense, plenty of research has confirmed the obvious: Criminals prefer unarmed victims.
2) Opportunistic politicians. Making political hay from this issue, or any issue for that matter, regardless of logic. Also politicians protecting the criminals-see point 1). Also politicians and PTB that understand what the 2nd Amendment is really about (hint-not deer hunting. Or even personal defense).
3) Some LEOs-mainly those in high crime areas, where excessive force on everyone, including the innocent, is standard practice.
4) Libtard idiots who are scared of a device, not the person wielding it. Emotion, not rational thought, rules their decision making process. Otherwise, the clear and well documented correlation between permissive gun laws and reduced crime rates would be compelling.
Have I left anyone out? In the end, your mission to convert the MA gun-grabbers to reality will probably be as productive as trying to convert the Iranian people to Judaism. But I admire your (futile) effort.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
22nd January 2013 at 2:20 am
AKAnon says:
BostonBob: Your post on Sam Whittemore kicked ass. “The dude actually survived the entire war, finally dying in 1793 at the age of 98 from extreme old age and awesomeness.” That line in and of itself was worth reading the whole post. I may have to steal and bastardize that line.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
22nd January 2013 at 2:22 am
John A says:
Dave Doe,
Thank you for your positive words concerning our military. Nobody smells bullshit faster than a soldier. Trust me on this one.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
22nd January 2013 at 6:17 am
flash says:
Yojimbo. you can lead a fool to reason…
The best way to handle prog-tards of the left or right persuasion is bitch slap then with reality and move on.
http://lewrockwell.com/case/case46.1.html
Lawlessness or Armed Citizens
by Tim Case
Recently by Tim Case: It Can’t Happen in America… Oh, Really?
“A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity.”
~ Sigmund Freud
Danny Glover’s recent statement to a Texas A&M audiences that: “The Second Amendment comes from the right to protect themselves (meaning the founding fathers) from slave revolts, and from uprisings by Native Americans…” is nothing short of liberal tripe. Of all people Glover should know better because the historical facts say just the opposite.
Don Kates a leading authority on the 2nd Amendment counters Glover with the well established foundation for the people’s right to keep and bear arms. “The Founders views,” Kates reminds us, “on the value of the right to arms began with Aristotle whom they revered as the font of liberal political thought. [For instance, Aristotle, POLITICS 218 (J. Sinclair trans., 1962)]: free government exalts an armed people, but oligarchies and tyrants ‘mistrust the people and therefore deprive them of their arms.’” (Emphasis mine)
We would do well to remember the statement in italics above because the history of firearm laws in U.S. history is less than laudable. In many ways the misuse of firearm laws to deny American citizens, of all races, the ownership of arms is uncomfortably sad and vehemently repugnant.
The sordid history of America’s gun control policies is the foundation of American oligarchies’ deliberate malicious bigotry, injustice, intolerance and deprivation of American citizen’s civil and natural rights. Those Americans which have been most affected have been the black community, American Indians, immigrants, and any minority that has been deemed “undesirable,” a threat to large industry, or “religiously inferior”.
At this juncture it must be understood that we are not talking about the common man or woman who in their delusional thinking accept that a utopian society can be achieved simply by the absences of firearms. Most if not all of today’s “liberals” would be horrified to learn that the “Jim Crow” laws they so routinely denounce are in fact the very product and made possible because of the anti-gun legislation they champion.
This flight of fantasy of those who adhere to anti-gun laws is dealt with in a most enlightening and well researched article written by Rabbi David Bendory, Rabbinic Director, for Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO) entitled Why Jews Hate Guns.
While Rabbi Bendory is dealing with the Jewish mindset his conclusions are more than applicable to the anti-gun hypocrites within the general population.
Rabbi Bendory elaborates on 10 fatal conditions within the “anti-gun” frame of mind which he identifies as:
A desire for utopian moral purity
A disproportional incidence of hoplophobia
A quest for power through victimization of peers
A utopian delusion that if guns would just “go away,” crime would end and the world would be a peaceful safe place
Self hatred and a wish to be helpless, acting out guilt-based behavioral problems that develop in childhood
The Ostrich Syndrome
Garden-variety hypocrisy
Adulterated religion – Jews In Name Only (JINOs)
Feel-good sophistry
Abject fear that yields irrational behavior
If you really want to know what you are dealing with when you talk to friends, family members or neighbors who are of the anti-gun persuasion I highly recommend you read and take to heart the wisdom that Rabbi Bendory imparts in his article.
We are dealing with individuals within the executive, legislative, and judicial branches at both the state and federal level who have conspired – along with their money power brokers – to deliberately subdue any group or groups to which they feared loosing their power; hated because of their moral persuasions; or stood as a force against illegal proclamations which included murder and overt acts of theft. This egregious assault on any human’s natural right to self defense is always draped in the palatable lie of “public safety”.
The convoluted thinking of those in power is brought home in the opinion expressed by Florida Justice Rivers H. Buford in the early part of the 20th century who wrote explaining a Florida gun control statute:
“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. The same condition existed when the Act was amended in 1901 and the Act was passed for the purpose of disarming the negro laborers . . . . The statute was never intended to be applied to the white population and in practice has never been so applied. . . .[T]here has never been, within my knowledge, any effort to enforce the provisions of this statute as to white people, because it has been generally conceded to be in contravention of the Constitution and non-enforceable if contested.”
Note that it is no longer a matter of conjecture, the message is perfectly clear; anti-gun laws were imposed on American citizens. These Americans were disarmed because they were black and an alleged threat to powerful Americans.
Forget that this opinion is based on a man’s or woman’s skin color; these are free American men and women he is speaking about! Now read it again! This opinion proclaims clearly a declaration of intolerance; if the powers that be feel they can trust you then you are allowed to own a firearm; if they fear you or want something from you – cheap labor – regardless of your skin color, the criminal force of the government will be used against you.
New York’s “Sullivan law” went into effect September 1, 1911 and as with any anti-gun legislation it favored some while suppressing others. The sun., August 03, 1919, Section 3 Magazine Section, Page 10 gives us an inside look at what really transpired with the Sullivan law.
“The Sullivan law not only made the possessor of firearms amenable to its punishment clause, but designated a stiff fine and a jail sentence for any person who sold such weapons to any one not possessed of a proper permit. Those citizens who possessed firearms were cautioned to report such ownership to Police Headquarters and, if Police Headquarters deemed it wisdom to allow the registrant to retain the pistol or revolver or whatever it chanced to be, the citizen were given a permit for which he paid a few dollars.”
“Doubtless the Sullivan law had its effect. It did not stop gang shootings nor did it stop the acquisition or the ownership of firearms. Furthermore it was used illegitimately by police. A few unfortunate citizens against whom somebody with Influence had a grudge were arrested on trumped up charges and when searched in the police station were found to have one or more revolvers in their possession. It made no difference whether the revolvers were in those pockets when the man was arrested. The fact remained that they were there when he was searched. He was guilty of a violation of the Sullivan law. The police said so and he might squall himself into apoplexy for all the good protest was going to do him. In brief, the gentleman had been framed and the guns planted and he went to jail and his enemies made merry.” (Emphasis mine)
This is precisely what the “Black Codes” – which had been in effect between 1803 and 1860 in Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and the Michigan Territory – and now were revived by the Confederate states at the end of the War Between the States, were all about.
The common elements of the “Black Code” are generally accepted as being:
Race was defined by blood; the presence of any amount of black blood made one black
Employment was required of all freedmen; violators faced vagrancy charges
Freedmen could not assemble without the presence of a white person
Freedmen were assumed to be agricultural workers and their duties and hours were tightly regulated
Freedmen were not to be taught to read or write
Public facilities were segregated
Violators of these laws were subject to being whipped or branded.
Here again, forget that these “laws” were designed to suppress free black people, they are first and foremost free Americans regardless of their skin color. Now, ask yourself this question. What free armed American would subject himself, or his family to such a satanic law; especially articles #3 (insert government official for white person), #5, and #7 above?
Would you? I know of no one who would. Then for these types of laws to be enforceable the intended victims must first be disarmed, and so it was.
Dave Kopel makes the point for me: “…[T]he Black Codes… explicitly restricted gun possession and carrying by the freedmen. Sometimes these laws facilitated the activities of the terrorist organization Ku Klux Klan, America’s first gun control organization. The top item on the Klan’s agenda was confiscating arms from the freedmen, the better to terrorize them afterward.”
An illustration of how obtuse and dangerous laws against personal ownership of firearms can be comes to us from Richmond Virginia and the Richmond planet., of November 25, 1899. In the article entitled “An Outrageous Decision” we read the following:
The latest outrageous verdict comes from Friars Point, Miss., under date of Nov. 8, 1899, and says that in the case of W. H. Elder (white) manager of the local telephone exchange who was charged with the murder of Burt Ward (colored) the coroners jury returned a verdict that Ward committed suicide by reflecting upon a white man’s character.
There was no denial that Elder literately and premeditatedly shot Ward.
If he had killed or maimed a horse he would have been fined at least $25 besides being required to pay the value of the animal.
We call attention to the fact that this murder was committed in Mississippi, which has disfranchised the Negro.
The Richmond, Va., Times has recently declared that such a remedy is “cure-all” for race troubles. We should like much to read its explanation of this crime, or stand convicted of advocating a policy which will do us much harm and the white man no good.
Colored men must protect themselves as there is no law now in the Southland to protect them.
We believe in owning firearms, and praying to God for the nerve to use them. This kind of “lamb-offering business” has no attraction for us.
Are you beginning to get the picture? Anti-gun laws are not and never have been designed to disarm a citizenry for the purpose of public safety. They are a precursor to far more nefarious laws and actions by government agents all of which have been and will be designed to drive individuals into fear and then submission.
Once disarmed are you absolutely sure that no law will ever be enacted that wouldn’t allow government agents to take a hot branding iron and brand you and your family as someone undesirable, a malcontent, a terrorist, a religious fanatic, a homosexual, a patriot, or some other “crime” conjured up in their mentally sick witch’s brew? How about a law forcing you to have a RFID chip implanted in you which has been coded with your “crime” rather than being branded?
Think of the control the government would have over your very life if this was the case. Are you sure this won’t happen or that isn’t part and parcel of their plan?
Don’t think it can’t happen. It has happened and it has happened in this country see here here and here to list just a few. Maybe it hasn’t happened to your race or your religious group but it has happened to American citizens. Men and women who were guaranteed the same rights as you claim for yourself.
For my friends who enjoy disciplines in other shooting sports but who don’t own one of those “scary” funny looking rifles and think they can appease the power structure; Don’t you understand that they have to divest the American public of all weapons? This has also been a part of American history and at times has become as evil as to include “carrying any potential weapon, such as a cane.” This is your fight as much as it is anyone else’s.
Have you considered the question of why now? Why are those bent on destroying your way of life, your liberties, and your country so resolute at this point in time in disarming you?
Is there something coming that the general public hasn’t been made aware of that will drive this nation into armed civil disobedience?
Certainly, many of us are aware that the American economy is faltering and headed for collapse. We are also aware that the American dollar is headed for the dustbin of history. The question as to when either of these events will occur may take years to answer.
Is there something more immediate and in the planning stages that the Federal government wishes to do? Some act so egregious that before it can be accomplished it would necessitate the disarming of the American public?
Certainly it is not the recent murderous death of children. If that were the case, there would have been a hue and cry in the media over the death of those innocent children, by Federal agents, at Waco, Texas.
Why does the present administration feel it is suddenly necessary to have “armed protection” for life?
Is the Federal government planning or hoping to seize American’s retirement accounts? Is it the growing freedom movement among America’s young?
I don’t know, but historically the disarming of citizens within a society has been the precursor to economic chaos or regime change.
One thing is for certain and it comes from the renowned American moral and social philosopher Eric Hoffer who wrote: “You can discover what your enemy fears most by observing the means he uses to frighten you.”
It is also reasonable to assume that the power structure did not see the voraciousness with which the American public would respond by continuing to sweep clean the ammunition isles and gun shelves of America’s firearm retailers. This act by itself has to compel any would be tyrant to at least pause.
It is more than obvious that the powerful American oligarchy is afraid of an armed American public. This alone is why Americans from all ethnic and religious backgrounds need high capacity magazines and those scary looking modern rifles. As long as Americans are armed, there is a chance we can keep this evil at bay. If you think otherwise history will prove you a fool.
January 23, 2013
Tim Case [send him mail] is a 30-year student of the ancient histories who agrees with the first-century stoic Epictetus on this one point: “Only the educated are free.”
Copyright © 2013 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.
Tim Case Archives
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
22nd January 2013 at 8:27 am
Barry Grise says:
test comments
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
22nd January 2013 at 10:36 am
KaD says:
Love this: Danny Glover shows astonishing ignorance of actual history in claim that Second Amendment was to ‘protect slavery’
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/038789_Danny_Glover_gun_control_ignorance.html#ixzz2IopN3gXQ
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
22nd January 2013 at 11:59 am
Dorkus Maximus says:
When arguing with gun control fools, be sure to remember:
“Never argue with a fool; onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.” attributed to Mark Twain.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
22nd January 2013 at 3:40 pm