Skip to main content

 

 I have stated many times that the Second Amendment to the Constitution is the most twisted sentence in the Constitution. It is just one sentence. Most people call it “the right to bear arms”. Well, it does say that but that is not all that it says.  But, most people including many in our courts just skip over the first part of the sentence and pretend it does not exist.   The Amendment reads “ 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”. You see just one sentence that has been twisted into what we have today. It is such a big topic that this will probably take a couple of postings to cover.

Why are the Bill of Rights amendments, as they are called, added to the Constitution and not in the main document? They are put there as a series of compromises to the original Constitution so it would be ratified by all the States. To say that the founding fathers put it there is a false statement in my opinion. The writers of the Constitution did not include it in the original document. Five States ratified the  Constitution without any amendments. I know that there are many people that say it was put there so States could rebel against the tyrannical federal government. I have seen  there are historians that do believe that and what were they protecting themselves, from the tyrannical government imposing? James Madison wrote that a militia could stand up to the Federal  Army. They had just created the government so I can’t believe that it was to destroy what they just created. What was James Madison and slave owner afraid of what the federal government would do?  What issue divided the nation even back then that some States would be afraid would force them to do away with? Could that issue have been slavery?

At the time of the writing of the Constitution the country was divided by the major issue of slavery. Do you know that when the Preamble to the Constitution was written many of the framers of the Constitution did not believe that slaves were people so when they wrote “We The People” so boldly they are not talking about Black people. Black people were property not people. Even free Blacks were not considered free people. “We the People” really did mean we the White people. The Constitution  established a Federal Army but did not mention anything on the State level. Before the establishment of a Continental Army during the Revolution we only had militias. To defeat the British we needed to create an actual army that was regulated and trained,  not just a bunch of farmers running around with guns. So the Constitution established that. A militia was not very good for the general defense of an opposing trained army. Do you know what militias were good at? They were good at enforcing slavery. As I have researched this I have come across  militias that were called Slave Patrol Militias. They were very common among the slave states and in a few of them they are mandatory. Google that and see what you come up with. Patrick Henry stated very bluntly that a State militia was needed to stop an insurrection of slaves. He did not believe that Congress would come to their aid if there was a slave revolt.

In 1780 there were more slaves in South Carolina than White people. It is hard to fathom that that over half the population was made up of slaves. The population of all the blacks in the slave states was between 30 and 40 percent during the first 5 censuses from 1780 to 1820. The only ways to control that many people had to have been by force and I am sure it was. These Slave Patrol Militias did regular inspections of all the plantations so they could put down a disturbance before one even started.  There were no police force, what they were dependant on was a local militia sanctioned by the State to put down an insurrection of slaves. Slave Patrol Militias were like the first police force of the south. Were there insurrections by slaves, the answer would be yes. One was Virginia in 1831 led by a slave named Nat Turner. To think that blacks were just willing slaves is well, just a lie. I have put a link to American Slave Insurrections that documents many of them.

So far in my research I see that the Second  Amendment was more meant for a well regulated local militia than it is was for people to carry arms. It has also reinforced my attitude that it really is a very racist amendment to the Constitution. Could the Slave Patrol Militias be the early version of what will become our Police Departments? I would bet that would vary from one section of the country to another. It is a very interesting debate. I will continue this with my next post.

I have posted some links to articles that I found interesting on the subject.

 

 

 

Second Amendment

Second Amendment Annotated

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.

The Second Amendment Was Ratified to Preserve Slavery (truthout.org)

Slave-patrols and the Second Amendment: How Fears of Abolition empowered the idea of an armed militia | The Milwaukee Independent

Slave, Free Black, and White Population, 1780-1830 (umbc.edu)

Slave Insurrections - Gateway Arch National Park (U.S. National Park Service) (nps.gov)

American Slave Insurrections - American Renaissance (amren.com)

History of Police in the US: How Policing Has Evolved Since the 1600s (insider.com)

The Origins of Policing in the United States | Snopes.com

Comments

  1. Indeed. I hope it is ok for me to quote you...will give credit

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

  Tommy Tuberville made a comment about Biden eating an ice cream cone in New York City. He posted on X that “Hope @JoeBiden enjoyed going out for ice cream in NYC while the rest of the city is afraid of crime and migrants”. If Senator Tuberville was really an informed and knowledgeable lawmaker he would know that Alabama, the State that he represents in the Senate, has a murder rate that is three times the rate of New York City. I wonder if this is a case of another Republican lying and giving misinformation in an attempt to weaken our nation or is he just a politician that doesn’t have a clue to the real problems that face the nation and the State he is suppose to represent. Maybe it would help if Tuberville actually lived in the State he is supposed to represent. If you believe the Washington Post he actually lives in Santa Rosa Beach, Florida. I have been to Santa Rosa Beach and I have to admit it is beautiful there but that should not be an excuse for not living in the State you r
  If I was a parent of a handicapped or developmentally disabled child I would be very nervous right now. If I was a parent of a Gay or Tran’s child I would be very nervous. Why? I think that we have a person running for the office of President that thinks that it is ok to mock people with disabilities. President Biden is a stutterer and he has worked hard to overcome that disability. That should be something that should be an inspiration to not only people with disabilities but to the entire nation. He is a man that has risen above his stuttering to achieve remarkable things. By Trump mocking Biden because of his stuttering he is sending a message to the entire country it is ok to bully other people just because they are different or have a disability. Now Biden is a grown man that has had to endure bullying like that all his life and he has come out probably stronger because of it. Not everyone is as strong as Biden. Biden is not the first person that Trump has insulted because a h
  Trump’s oath of office, his lawyers are saying that Trump never took an oath to support the Constitution. Why would his lawyers say this? The reason is because the Presidential oath of office does not have the word “Support” in it. The Presidential oath uses the words “Preserve, Protect, and Defend” the Constitution. Why would the Presidential oath not use the word support? Could it be that the President is held to a higher standard than just support the Constitution? I have read that is the reason why that the words “Preserve, Protect and Defend” are used is to show the greater responsibility the President has to the Constitution. I think Trump’s lawyers want us to believe that Trump had less of a responsibility to our Constitution because the word “Support” is not in his oath. I think just the opposite; he had a stronger responsibility and failed at that responsibility, badly. Maybe that is because he never read the Constitution of the United States. Trump’s lawyers also say Sect