No it wasn’t. The second amendment was written to protect tyrannical bullshit. The slaveowners wanted to make sure the federal government couldn’t disarm their state-owned militias
You just posted a federalist society goon. He’s one of the people that worked on the great American project to make abortion illegal, and the president a king. I mean, you’re trying to prove your point by posting the arguments of an extreme right wing lawyer https://fedsoc.org/contributors/stephen-halbrook
The text of the second amendment is pretty clearly talking about militias, and the history shows the same. The individualist interpretation is very recent, and Heller was a shitty decision written by the most corrupt supreme coirt justice. https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/2020/10/why-heller-is-such-bad-history
I’m not anti-gun. I respect the fuck out of the people in OP, who are doing what they can to stay safe. I wouldn’t discourage them from doing so. but I hate right wing propaganda
To my knowledge, the link I provided wasn’t a treatise on individual ownership or saying that it wasn’t about militias. It was a direct rebuttal to the idea that the 2nd amendment was proposed to protect slavery.
I was unaware of Halbrook’s associations, so thank you for bringing that to my attention. However, even a broken clock is right twice a day. If you’d like to change my mind about this, I’d like to see a direct rebuttal of the facts and arguments presented.
I’m arguing against the idea that the second amendment was designed to protect individuals against tyrannical government
I didn’t say it was specifically/exclusively to protect slavery. I didn’t say anything about slave rebellions. The constitution was all about balancing the power of wealthy landed slaveholders of the south with the wealthy landed urbanites of the north. Ensuring state militias was one element of that balancing act.
Pretending the second amendment was written to protect against tyrannical governments is ahistorical right wing propaganda. * Unless you view it as one sovereign being protected from the tyranny of another. Eg Virginia is protected from the tyranny of Pennsylvania or vis versa
If you want to read a rebuttal of halbrooks legal theory, read the Heller dissents
Okay. But, I didn’t say anything about tyrannical governments, either. Only that the 2nd amendment didn’t seem to be driven by any sort of slave related anything, per the history presented in the link I read.
It does. Armed peaceful protesters don’t get hassled by the police. These are armed peaceful protesters and they were not hassled. It worked for the black panthers. Cops only brutalize the weak.
Armed peaceful protesters don’t get hassled by the police.
There were quite a few shoot outs between panthers and cops, no? Some even argue that the increasing use of “swat” was, in part, because of black panthers.
Again, I’m not speaking out against armed groups, but it seems a bit romantized to say “armed protesters don’t get hasseled”…
The INTENT of the second amendment was protect the states’ militias from being disarmed by the feds. So that enslavers like Washington could rest assured that his slave state of Virginia wouldn’t be liberated by the feds
Now I understand why americans need guns.
I mean, that was always the point.
To fight tyrannical bullshit.
It’s just that purist assholes don’t want any regulation whatsoever - so that anyone, anyone can get a gun. And welp… the tragic bullshit happens.
I’m not pro-gun or anti-gun. I’m pro-common-sense.
No it wasn’t. The second amendment was written to protect tyrannical bullshit. The slaveowners wanted to make sure the federal government couldn’t disarm their state-owned militias
Never heard the claim before. Looked into it, and I don’t think that’s the case.
https://www.law.georgetown.edu/public-policy-journal/wp-content/uploads/sites/23/2022/09/GT-GLPP220045.pdf#6
lol you fell for the obvious bait. look at post history
I took a look at their comment history. They don’t seem like a troll to me. Maybe a bit further left than myself, but that’s not always a bad thing.
You just posted a federalist society goon. He’s one of the people that worked on the great American project to make abortion illegal, and the president a king. I mean, you’re trying to prove your point by posting the arguments of an extreme right wing lawyer https://fedsoc.org/contributors/stephen-halbrook
The text of the second amendment is pretty clearly talking about militias, and the history shows the same. The individualist interpretation is very recent, and Heller was a shitty decision written by the most corrupt supreme coirt justice. https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/2020/10/why-heller-is-such-bad-history
I’m not anti-gun. I respect the fuck out of the people in OP, who are doing what they can to stay safe. I wouldn’t discourage them from doing so. but I hate right wing propaganda
I’m unsure what you’re arguing against.
To my knowledge, the link I provided wasn’t a treatise on individual ownership or saying that it wasn’t about militias. It was a direct rebuttal to the idea that the 2nd amendment was proposed to protect slavery.
I was unaware of Halbrook’s associations, so thank you for bringing that to my attention. However, even a broken clock is right twice a day. If you’d like to change my mind about this, I’d like to see a direct rebuttal of the facts and arguments presented.
I’m arguing against the idea that the second amendment was designed to protect individuals against tyrannical government
I didn’t say it was specifically/exclusively to protect slavery. I didn’t say anything about slave rebellions. The constitution was all about balancing the power of wealthy landed slaveholders of the south with the wealthy landed urbanites of the north. Ensuring state militias was one element of that balancing act.
Pretending the second amendment was written to protect against tyrannical governments is ahistorical right wing propaganda. * Unless you view it as one sovereign being protected from the tyranny of another. Eg Virginia is protected from the tyranny of Pennsylvania or vis versa
If you want to read a rebuttal of halbrooks legal theory, read the Heller dissents
Okay. But, I didn’t say anything about tyrannical governments, either. Only that the 2nd amendment didn’t seem to be driven by any sort of slave related anything, per the history presented in the link I read.
Then you missed the context of my post! Look at the comment I was replying to
Someone said the point of the second amendment was always about fighting tyrannical government. Then I replied.
lol! shut up.
Sorry to trigger you with history
lol ok trooller.
Too bad this is an extremely rare use case, but yes this is exactly the INTENT of the second amendment.
Does it actually work? Because I fear that it doesn’t and just gives cops/the state even more excuses to further militarize police in the long teem.
I’m not antigun, but this seems like an arms race you can’t win.
It does. Armed peaceful protesters don’t get hassled by the police. These are armed peaceful protesters and they were not hassled. It worked for the black panthers. Cops only brutalize the weak.
Well I’m not sure it worked that well for Fred Hampton or the MOVE guys.
There’s always a danger of escalation, and the boys in blue have no upper limit.
There were quite a few shoot outs between panthers and cops, no? Some even argue that the increasing use of “swat” was, in part, because of black panthers.
Again, I’m not speaking out against armed groups, but it seems a bit romantized to say “armed protesters don’t get hasseled”…
I’m pretty sure there are some statistics on the mental profiles of cops the people who end up becoming them being people who enjoy power.
And this is a failure of the system. The failure to identify and reject these sick fucks.
Failure of the system, or working exactly how it was intended?
lol okay
Well if you think about it the population has the numbers, so do the math
The vast majority is not willing to die in armed struggle against the state…
More will be willing once they realize that the state will kill them whether they support it or not.
The INTENT of the second amendment was protect the states’ militias from being disarmed by the feds. So that enslavers like Washington could rest assured that his slave state of Virginia wouldn’t be liberated by the feds
I hate that this is true.