|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
Experts Debate Second Amendment’s Effects on Equality, Inequality in the United States
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Carol Anderson is the Charles Howard Candler professor of African American Studies at Emory University. Her latest book is “The Second: Race and Guns in a Fatally Unequal America.”
Anderson says when she looks at the Second Amendment, she focuses on how the fear of an uprising of enslaved people drove the creation of the amendment. “You had in the Virginia constitutional ratification amendment, Patrick Henry and George Mason arguing that the control of a militia that James Madison had put into the Constitution would leave slaveholders defenseless because you could not trust the federal government to organize the militia and send the militia down if there was a massive slave revolt,” she says. |
| Comment by:
MarkHamTownsend
(8/19/2021)
|
What a bunch of stier-scheisse.
The second amendment was ratified because the British attempted to disarm the Colonists (among other assaults on liberty) and the Founders wanted to protect Americans' right to keep and bear arms so they could resist a tyrannical government.
No one is justifying slavery, it was a vile, horrible institution, but trying to argue it was used to justify the second amendment is unbelievably deceitful and completely unnecessary. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) |
|
|
