Who Hijacked Our Country

Friday, July 15, 2016

What the Second Amendment REALLY Means.

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.

Catch that?  “Militia” refers to the state-regulated slave patrols in the southern states, which dated back to the mid 1700s.  For just one example:  In Georgia, all plantation owners and/or their white male employees were required to be members of the Georgia Militia, which made monthly inspections of all slaves' quarters throughout the state, with the purpose of ferreting out any possible escapes or uprisings that them uppity slaves might be planning.

Here are some more links.

All righty then.

Labels: ,

10 Comments:

Blogger Luke said...

Written in 1787, the short and complete second amendment:

"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."

That's no longer the law in 2016.

The Supreme Court ruled in 2008 that the amendment protected individuals’ right to possess firearms unconnected to any service in a militia.
Seems to me the Supreme Court also decided that the original wording meant a group right.
So that is the law. Individuals have the right to firearms and the militia argument is over. That can be changed again by another Supreme Court ruling, or other processes.

July 15, 2016 at 4:18 PM  
Anonymous Nick said...

Yeah...well SCOTUS, as lead by the Bush-appointed jackanape Roberts, and supported by the crypto-fascist Scalia, were flat out in error, period: An elementary English teacher can diagram that sentence appropriately, and many have over the years.

The fact that SCOTUS deliberately mis-parsed a simple sentence tells you all you need to know abut the lengths to which the far-right conservatives are prepared to go in order to impose their moral judgement upon the country, bleeding schoolchildren be damned.

I only wish the Left had had the balls and foresight to arrange for Scalia's demise, rather than leaving it to fate - it might encourage me about the direction of our nation.

July 15, 2016 at 5:29 PM  
Blogger Tom Harper said...

Luke: I didn't know about that 2008 Supreme Court ruling. I haven't really followed the whole guns/NRA thing that closely. Mostly I thought it was interesting -- and something the "media" isn't going to tell us -- that the Second Amendment was pretty much written by and for slave owners. There are so many holdovers from this country's disgraceful history that are front and center, staring us in the face; hiding in plain sight.

Nick: Yup, it's funny how everybody who's graduated from 6th grade can diagram a sentence, and yet that same sentence is too complex for the SCOTUS to figure out. They have an agenda, and a few simple facts aren't going to stand in their way. I agree Scalia lived too damn long. He and his silent partner Clarence have fucked things up beyond recognition.

July 15, 2016 at 11:29 PM  
Blogger Jefferson's Guardian said...

Nick, if I'm not mistaken, and granted I haven't searched recently to see whether there has been updated information, but I don't believe an autopsy was ever conducted on Scalia. A county judge pronounced him dead by "natural causes" -- and she made the determination by telephone.

Perhaps if the medical experts at Parkland Hospital, along with the criminal justice system, were allowed to conduct their business in 1963, then there's a large probability we wouldn't be facing the same conditions that we do today. The same applies with the aftermath of 9/11/2001. Then again, maybe the events of that day never would have occurred if the event on 11/22/1963 was investigated and settled locally.

Texas always seems to be the scene of many controversial crimes and incidents. I guess it's true: "Everything's Bigger in Texas!"

July 16, 2016 at 5:20 AM  
Anonymous Screamin' Mimi said...

Well, dagnabbit, they took away our slaves but there are still plenty of other insignificant people around that we can sorta "own" -- our wives, daughters, anybody black or brown or yellow, you get the picture. And any of them might just rise up and demand rights or in some other way poke us, and by God we need to be able to defend ourselves. One of them there AK-47s sounds like just the ticket.

July 16, 2016 at 5:05 PM  
Blogger Tom Harper said...

SM: Now yer talkin'. White male property owners -- i.e. those of us whom God created in His own image -- are gettin' dang tired of them uppity brown people, homasexials and womenfolk talkin' 'bout needin' some sort of special rights just for them. Our Founding Fathers intended for us decent white folk to have AK-47s so we can keep them other folks in line.

July 16, 2016 at 10:22 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

In spite of that before modern times (after the 70's) most of the major gun control legislation had been aimed towards black people. In the Colonial days, the governments passed laws prohibiting free blacks from owning guns. After reconstruction, the Southern States also passed laws forbidding black people from owning guns (Where a lot of the population is rural and people hunt? C'mon!), I assume to make it easier for Klan terrorist attacks. California (which used to have some of the most liberal open carry laws this side of the Rio Grande) passed its most comprehensive gun control laws in a matter of days (Warp speed in politics), by almost unanimous bipartisan vote and signed by their Liberal Gun Hating Governor by the name of Ronald Reagan. Seems the Black Panther Party legally flouted the gun laws and caused the government to change the rules.

With the display of open carry by black people and the shooting in Minnesota where the black man was reportedly trying to get out his gun license, Unless the NRA gets smart and join the protest for the right to openly carry a gun without a nervous cop taking shots at you (imagine that), these incidents will be the catalyst for a lot of gun control laws in the Future.

BTW how many of you know that the NRA has at times Advocated the right for the Black Communities to arm themselves in order to protect themselves against police aggression? I've seen it on TV many times.

Erik

July 17, 2016 at 10:41 PM  
Blogger Tom Harper said...

Erik: Nope, I had no idea that "the NRA has at times Advocated the right for the Black Communities to arm themselves in order to protect themselves against police aggression." It's totally consistent with the NRA's pro-gun rhetoric, but nobody ever accused the NRA of being consistent.

I agree that "unless the NRA gets smart and join the protest for the right to openly carry a gun without a nervous cop taking shots at you (imagine that), these incidents will be the catalyst for a lot of gun control laws in the Future." This will alienate a lot of the NRA's KKK-type supporters; it'll be interesting to see how they handle this.

July 17, 2016 at 11:41 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Erik: Nope, I had no idea that "the NRA has at times Advocated the right for the Black Communities to arm themselves in order to protect themselves against police aggression." It's totally consistent with the NRA's pro-gun rhetoric, but nobody ever accused the NRA of being consistent."

I always thought that was a double sided message to its members, meaning if Black People arm themselves then we have a right to escalate our arms as well as who wants to live next to a neighborhood of well armed Black People?


Erik

July 18, 2016 at 1:35 PM  
Blogger Tom Harper said...

Erik: That's probably true. After all, if more blacks and more whites are buying guns, the bottom line is -- more guns have been sold. Mission Accomplished.

July 18, 2016 at 9:55 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home