An Unconvincing Case

Discussion in 'Gun Control' started by 6Gunner, May 27, 2018.

  1. 6Gunner

    6Gunner Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2010
    Messages:
    5,631
    Likes Received:
    4,062
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    An Unconvincing Case That Slavery Taints the Second Amendment
    By CHARLES C. W. COOKE
    May 25, 2018 12:21 PM
    [​IMG]
    Carl Bogus (YouTube screengrab via RT)
    A New York Times piece leaves out key details that devastate its narrative.

    In the New York Times, Carl Bogus attempts to taint the Second Amendment by linking it to America’s greatest historical evil, slavery. I say “attempt” because Bogus doesn’t make an argument so much as he insinuates, gestures, and implies perfidy with a wink. Where there should be glue, there is handwaving instead. Where one would expect a joint, there is an ellipsis, a “may be,” or a hard-turned “I believe it likely.” As is typical of the genre, the result is as transparent as it is shoddy.

    Bogus’s central claim is that the Second Amendment’s “genesis was, at least in part, a concern with preserving a form of governmental tyranny?” You’ll note the cop-out question mark in that sentence — a trick that is also used in the title, “Was Slavery a Factor in the Second Amendment?” To get to this explosive conclusion, Bogus selectively recounts the “background” against which the Bill of Rights was passed, and then, in a remarkable jump, proposes that the context he provides must serve as the best explanation for why at least one state, Virginia, ratified the Bill of Rights, and with it the Second Amendment. Such as it is, Bogus’s case runs like this:

    https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/05/second-amendment-slavery-nyt-piece-misleading-claims/amp/
     
    rover77 likes this.
  2. Rucker61

    Rucker61 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2016
    Messages:
    9,774
    Likes Received:
    4,103
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Dear Dr Bogus,

    See Article 1, Section 8.
     
  3. Turtledude

    Turtledude Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2015
    Messages:
    30,272
    Likes Received:
    20,254
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    two years ago-ten days apart, I spend some time with Yale's top Constitutional law professor-Akhil Reed Amar. First- at my 35th Reunion at Yale where ARA was presenting a lecture concerning his new books concerning the constitution The second was at his appearance at the Cincinnati Yale Club Chapter. I asked him if the second amendment was written due to slavery. He said that while the electoral college (and the 3/5 count for slaves) was clearly a bone thrown to the slave states, the 2A had no such basis since some strong anti slave states had the same provisions in their constitutions. I asked him why serious academics haven't addressed the Bogus Bullshit and he noted its because its not taken seriously.
     
  4. Galileo

    Galileo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    2,860
    Likes Received:
    481
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Charles C. Cooke's response seems to be largely a straw man. Bogus did not argue that slavery was the main or sole reason for the Second Amendment. He said it was a factor which seems plausible given the historical context.
     
  5. Turtledude

    Turtledude Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2015
    Messages:
    30,272
    Likes Received:
    20,254
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    its not. and it was slavers who did everything possible to infringe on second amendment rights after the fall of the confederacy. Bogus is a third rate academic who was trying to smear pro gun positions when in reality, the gun control movement is founded upon racism and bigotry
     
    6Gunner likes this.
  6. rover77

    rover77 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2017
    Messages:
    845
    Likes Received:
    693
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Gender:
    Male
    it's all in the name sometimes
     
    Turtledude likes this.
  7. Max Rockatansky

    Max Rockatansky Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2013
    Messages:
    25,394
    Likes Received:
    8,172
    Trophy Points:
    113
    In short, this Bogus idiot wants to negate the entire Constitution since he argument against the Second Amendment applies to the entire document.
     
    DoctorWho and Turtledude like this.
  8. Turtledude

    Turtledude Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2015
    Messages:
    30,272
    Likes Received:
    20,254
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    top level law professors don't even bother with the Bogus bullshit since some of the most anti slave states had second amendment provisions in their state constitutions. The only person who ran with the Bogus Bullshit was a gun hating talk show host named Thom Hartmann who describes himself as a "democratic socialist". He appears to be the only person of note to adopt the Bogus BS and of course he has no credentials in constitutional law or history.
     
    rover77, 6Gunner and Max Rockatansky like this.
  9. Galileo

    Galileo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    2,860
    Likes Received:
    481
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Modern day opposition to common sense gun control originated in the slave states. An early American historian explains:

    "The Slave-State Origins of Modern Gun Rights

    "Gun-rights advocates have waged a relentless battle to gut what remains of America’s lax and inadequate gun regulations.... But what the advocates do not acknowledge—and some courts seem not to understand—is that their arguments are grounded in precedent unique to the violent world of the slaveholding South....

    "Public-carry advocates like to cite historical court opinions to support their constitutional vision, but those opinions are, to put it mildly, highly problematic. The supportive precedent they rely on comes from the antebellum South and represented less a national consensus than a regional exception rooted in the unique culture of slavery and honor. By focusing only on sympathetic precedent, and ignoring the national picture, gun-rights advocates find themselves venerating a moment at which slavery, honor, violence, and the public carrying of weapons were intertwined....

    "The opinion most enthusiastically embraced by public-carry advocates is Nunn v. State, a state-court decision written by Georgia Chief Justice Joseph Henry Lumpkin in 1846. As a jurist, Lumpkin was a champion both of slavery and of the Southern code of honor. Perhaps, not by coincidence, Nunn was the first case in which a court struck down a gun law on the basis of the Second Amendment.... Slavery, 'honor,' and their associated violence spawned a unique weapons culture. One of its defining features was a permissive view of white citizens’ right to carry weapons in public....

    "Southern men thus carried weapons both 'as a protection against the slaves' and also to be prepared for 'quarrels between freemen.' "
    https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...arry-jurisprudence-in-the-slave-south/407809/
     
    Last edited: May 29, 2018
  10. Turtledude

    Turtledude Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2015
    Messages:
    30,272
    Likes Received:
    20,254
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    that nonsense has been rejected constantly. Major league constitutional scholars don't even bother with it
     
    6Gunner likes this.
  11. Galileo

    Galileo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    2,860
    Likes Received:
    481
    Trophy Points:
    83
  12. Rucker61

    Rucker61 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2016
    Messages:
    9,774
    Likes Received:
    4,103
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Given that the federal government has complete control over the membership and arms of the militia, how does the Second Amendment protect the militia in states where slavery was legal?
     
  13. Galileo

    Galileo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    2,860
    Likes Received:
    481
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gerald Horne, an African American history professor at the University of Houston, comments on the racist history of the Second Amendment:

    "Militias were needed precisely to oppress rambunctious and rampaging enslaved Africans and marauding indigenous people. And that is what the Second Amendment was all about.... You have the Southern Poverty Law Center discussing the unavoidable fact that since the election of Barack Obama, the first black president, the number of armed militias has increased... the right wing in the United States has not ruled out the possibility of a massed armed uprising against a particular government they do not like.... people of color are at risk of becoming victims of this gun mania."
     
    Last edited: May 30, 2018
  14. Turtledude

    Turtledude Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2015
    Messages:
    30,272
    Likes Received:
    20,254
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    he's a propagandist-not a real scholar.
    He didn't last long at Ohio State even with Joyce Foundation money behind his anti gun nonsense. Akhil Amar is an expert on constitutional history which is far more relevant than Cornell who has no legal training
     
    DoctorWho, 6Gunner and Rucker61 like this.
  15. Rucker61

    Rucker61 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2016
    Messages:
    9,774
    Likes Received:
    4,103
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Given that the federal government has complete control over the membership and arms of the militia, how does the Second Amendment protect the militia in states where slavery was legal?
     
  16. Turtledude

    Turtledude Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2015
    Messages:
    30,272
    Likes Received:
    20,254
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    From Wiki - Horne is Marxist. You are right but but racist black lefties hate the NRA and will openly lie in order to smear it. the SPLC is one of the most dishonest left wing propaganda centers in the USA-it makes money scaring mainly wealthy Jews and Blacks into donating to the SPLC so the SPCL can guard against non-existent threats. The SPLC calls almost any group that opposes the creeping crud of socialism a "terrorist" or hate group
     
    Last edited: May 31, 2018
    DoctorWho and 6Gunner like this.
  17. yiostheoy

    yiostheoy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2016
    Messages:
    8,603
    Likes Received:
    3,454
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sounds like he has it all backwards.

    Slavery only became related to 2A after the slaves were freed.

    From then on the legislation to prevent freed slaves from getting guns began the erosion in general of 2A for white people as well.
     
    DoctorWho and Turtledude like this.
  18. Galileo

    Galileo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    2,860
    Likes Received:
    481
    Trophy Points:
    83
    He understands the historical context of the Second Amendment much better than those who only have legal training.

    That article doesn't say that he's a Marxist. Maybe you need to be more open-minded.
     
    Last edited: May 31, 2018
  19. Rucker61

    Rucker61 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2016
    Messages:
    9,774
    Likes Received:
    4,103
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Or simply do a bit more research:

    https://keywiki.org/Gerald_Horne
     
    6Gunner and Turtledude like this.
  20. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    23,895
    Likes Received:
    7,537
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And yet his arguments were rejected by the united state supreme court when it came to the meaning of the second amendment.

    There is not, and never has been, evidence to actually support the nonsensical claim that the second amendment ever had anything to do with the matter of either slavery, or slave rebellions.
     
    Last edited: May 31, 2018
    DoctorWho likes this.
  21. Turtledude

    Turtledude Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2015
    Messages:
    30,272
    Likes Received:
    20,254
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I deny that, he's a dishonest propagandist who like Bersailles, is a paid hack. and Amar is a legal historian which is the most important type of scholar when it comes to this

    Wiki says he's a marxist. are you denying that?
     
    DoctorWho likes this.
  22. Turtledude

    Turtledude Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2015
    Messages:
    30,272
    Likes Received:
    20,254
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Its amazing, these gun banners spout nonsense that is easily destroyed.
     
    DoctorWho likes this.
  23. Galileo

    Galileo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    2,860
    Likes Received:
    481
    Trophy Points:
    83
    It wouldn't be so if the Second Amendment was being enforced but your side doesn't really care about that.

    His highest degree is a J.D. so Saul Cornell is much more qualified to comment on the historical context of the Second Amendment. Nevertheless, let's examine what Amar really does say about the Second Amendment:

    "The amendment speaks of a right of 'the people' collectively rather than a right of 'persons' individually. And it uses a distinctly military phrase: 'bear arms.' A deer hunter or target shooter carries a gun but does not, strictly speaking, bear arms. The military connotation was even more obvious in an earlier draft of the amendment, which contained additional language that 'no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.' Even in the final version, note how the military phrase 'bear arms' is sandwiched between a clause that talks about the 'militia' and a clause (the Third Amendment) that regulates the quartering of 'soldiers' in times of 'war' and 'peace.' Likewise, state constitutions in place in 1789 consistently used the phrase 'bear arms' in military contexts and no other....

    "The rest of the Bill of Rights confirms this communitarian reading. The core of the First Amendment’s assembly clause, which textually abuts the Second Amendment, is the right of 'the people'—in essence, voters—to 'assemble' in constitutional conventions and other political conclaves. So, too, the core rights retained and reserved to 'the people' in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments were rights of the people collectively to govern themselves democratically."
    https://newrepublic.com/article/73718/second-thoughts
     
    Last edited: Jun 1, 2018
  24. Turtledude

    Turtledude Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2015
    Messages:
    30,272
    Likes Received:
    20,254
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    BS and more BS, Cornell is a paid hack. Amar holds the MOST PRESTIGIOUS chair in the country-The Sterling Professorship of Constitutional Law. and you don't understand that EVERY supreme Court case involving the second amendment accepted the individual rights approach. Amar now accepts the individual rights approach. At one time he tried to finesse the issue by claiming its an individual right exercised collectively, by being on a jury. He has evolved. I know, I have known Akhil for almost 40 years and we touch base every couple of years or so.
     
    Last edited: Jun 1, 2018
  25. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    23,895
    Likes Received:
    7,537
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Enforcement of the second amendment would mean no firearm-related restrictions being enacted and implemented, in any manner that conceivably violates, or otherwise interferes, with the established constitutional right to use deadly force in the name of self defense.

    The united state supreme court rejected the collective rights interpretation argument pertaining to the second amendment. No opinion piece by an individual whose position was rejected can ever undo that established fact, meaning their opinion is completely irrelevant, and not worth discussing further.

    Furthermore, the united state supreme court has interpreted the constitutional rights and protections found within the bill of rights, to apply and exist in an individual manner, never a collective manner.
     
    Last edited: Jun 2, 2018
    Turtledude likes this.

Share This Page