Skip to main content

 

This is my continuation of my exploration of the Second Amendment of the Constitution. If you have read my last posting you will know what I had discovered. I still believe that it is the most twisted sentence in the Constitution. 

In my last writing I discovered what was called the Slave Patrol Militia. It is debated whether  these Slave Patrol Militias were that first actual police departments of the South and maybe the whole country. New York City had the very first Police Department in 1844 with most of the major cities following suite. Most of the major cities in the North had Police Departments pre-civil war. A lot of the South did not follow the trend that I can see. I would suspect that they already had a sort of police in the form of their Slave Patrols. Atlanta did not have its first police Department until 1873. The North feared crime from immigrants and the South feared insurrection from the slaves.

Gun control has been imposed and debated since  before the Republic was even established. In some ways making it mandatory to own a gun. Without a police force or an army,  all that you had was each other, so local regulated Militias were necessary. Sometimes this dependency on each other led to mob rule. We have all seen the movies with the lynch mobs, some of that is actually true. Some will use the Salem Witch Trials during the 1690s were townspeople overpowered  the logic of the law as a example of mob rule. In 1837 Abraham Lincoln wrote about lynchings and the disregard for the law. Mob violence also played a prominent role in the expulsions of the Mormons from Nauvoo,  Illinois and from Missouri. I think that there are hundreds of examples of mob rule just in the United States especially against minorities.

In the ruling by the Supreme Court in 1874, the case United States  vs. Cruikshank,  the Supreme Court ruled that “The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument of its existence. The Second Amendment means no more than it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government.” You would think that this was a victory for gun control on the State level but at the time it opened the door for open season on the Blacks in our southern states. We also had a few years later in 1886 Presser  vs. the State of Illinois. Illinois had passed a law against locally formed militias not sanctioned by the State. That law was upheld by the Supreme court so now a militia had to follow the laws of the State.

The Supreme Court seems to always interprete the 2nd amendment as far as I can see as a militia law and not an arms law. It wasn’t until the Gun Control Act that was passed  by Johnson restricting gun ownership even more woke  up the NRA to look for gun friendly politicians.  Here it had been almost 200 years and now you had people running around trying to change the meaning of the 2nd amendment. Gun control did continue into the 21st century until the assault ban expired in 2004. So after over 200 years we have a change in the Supreme Court with Chief Justice Roberts and Samuel Alito and now the meaning  of the 2nd amendment has  now shifted toward personal gun ownership and protection and not for the security of the State. I will ask how can these guys come in after more than 200 years, these guys come in and tell everyone that the other courts were wrong?  All of a sudden words that do not actually appear in the 2nd amendment are the most important. Someone has to tell me where personal protection appears in the 2nd amendment.  I will guarantee you that it was not there 200 years ago and it is not there now. Some people may actually call that legislating from the bench. To go from 1874 to where the right to bear arms is not guaranteed by the Constitution to what we have now is anybody’s guess.  I would venture to say that in both cases it was more about politics than is was actually about the Constitution and what our Founding Fathers meant.

People are dying and as you add more guns to the street more people will die. Somebody does not buy a gun not to use it. I am not opposed to gun ownership. I own 7 guns. I am a hunter. I have shot trap. I think both sports are great sports that can be shared with the family. If I needed to I would protect my home as I would think everyone should be able to and I know that I am able to. I know though it is not a right granted to me by the Constitution of the United States because if it was it would state it. Every State has a State Constitution and State laws that have always governed my right to own a gun and to protect my home and I do believe that the Federal Government should  dictated to the State and communities how they can be made safe. No matter what people tell me, I know that guns are not making our communities safer. More guns will mean just more death and more violence. I think it will also lead to more disregard to the law and more mob action against minorities.

 After all the research I have done I still believe that the 2nd Amendment is the most twisted sentence in the Constitution. It was contrived because of Slavery and it in my belief it has  been one of the most racist parts of our Constitution and our Country.

My next posting I will explore Militias In the United States.

 

 

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.

police - Early police in the United States | Britannica

The History of Police in America and the First Force | Time

What is gun control? Everything you need to know (nbcnews.com)

The Most Important Supreme Court Gun Cases About Firearm Rights (ranker.com)

The Second Amendment: A Complete History of the Right to Bear Arms | History Cooperative

Mob rule - Wikipedia

Comments

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