Interested to see what you guys think about these articles that take a different approach to why the 2nd amendment exists instead of the typical 'defense against tyranny' one that is often used.
http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/thom-hartmann/47507/the-founding-fathers-versus-the-gun-nuts
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread...nd-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery
Just as an initial response, I'll say that I don't see appeals to originary documents or people - the Constitution, the Founding Fathers, etc. - as legitimate arguments either in favor of, or against, gun regulation. We can interpret ad nauseam, but the truth is that the country the Founding Fathers were writing about was very different than the one we live in today.
But I still want to read those articles, so I'll give them a glance later.
Well, to begin with I sort of concur with Pat, that appeals to documents are purely of a legal nature, rather than a "right and wrong" nature, which is how they get construed. Secondly, I have a very Spoonerish (Lysander) position regarding the Constitution: It's a "damnable" document. Obviously the 2nd amendment was not broadly seen by the FF's (
maybe Jeffersonians being a possible exception) as something meant to be turned at the institution they created, whether immediately or in the future. So in that respect I "agree". The Sedition Act(s) and the put-down of the Whiskey Rebellion ought to be contextual proof enough of that.
Now for the articles. So much truth and bullshit woven together it's very
. The most obvious example is where he says "Hitler didn't take the guns". Well no, they weren't taken from everyone. Just the Jews, you know, the ones wanted dead. Also, suggesting that the Boston Tea Party wasn't violent is using a very strict definition of violence. It was destructive, and certainly not peaceful, but supposedly no one was hurt.
That keeping the slave population under control was
one of the reasons for the 2nd Amendment is probable, but less interesting when you figure that they weren't the only property, and that the same reasons people needed to be safe from a slave uprising was the same reason to be safe from anyone wishing them harm (whether justified or not). However, the more interesting point of taking this angle (which I don't doubt played some part), is the fact that gun
control is rooted in preventing blacks from getting weapons, just like marriage licenses were to prevent mixed marriage.
Prohibition flows from elitism, it
is slavery. Slaves weren't allowed x/y/z, to include guns, and then again after being "Freed" if at all possible. Why do people insist on trying to put themselves "on the plantation"?
Now this reminds me of the several times where people on my FB who are still, I guess, new to the internet, see some headline from the Onion or duffelblog and get all kinds of upset (cause it's real!).
