There's legitimate contention on this issue. If y9u go back to Alexander Hamilton you'll find that in the West Indies where he grew up, whites were required to own a firearm and drill with the local militia with that firearm. The reason for this was a fear of slaves revolting and freeing themselves and harming the whites in the process. I contend that it was this fear of the slaves revolting that brought about the Second Amendment. We now realize that slavery was the greatest stain on our history and a fear of slaves revolting belongs in ancient history. I see no need for the Second Amendment other than to allow hunters to hunt and target shooting to be allowed in furtherance of hunting. Do we really believe that we're going to stop the government from taking over by disallowing guns not suited for hunting big game?
The last question has too many double negatives for my brain to process, and I'm fairly well read. It makes it sound like you're defending gun ownership, which contadicts the first part of your post. Not sure what you are asking or what point you are trying to make.
Here is a recent article https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...meant-to-the-founders/?utm_term=.9514c84d8d6b
Remember when conservatives were like. “THE FOUNDING FATHERS ONLY MEANT FOR A MAN AND A WOMAN TO BE MARRIED” Hilarious, how fox and cnn just tug at the stupidity of the right and left.
I'd say the idea for the 2nd amendment first came about when the Brits started rounding up all the guns prior to the start of the Revolutionary War. I highly doubt it had anything to do with slavery. Hell, it's why we had our first engagements at Lexington and Concord because the Brits were trying to march on our stockpiles. I also completely disagree with people who think that an armed populace can not take on a conventional army. It worked in Vietnam. It worked in Afghanistan. It worked in Iraq. Conventional armies are built to fight on the battle field. They're not designed to occupy and they're certainly not designed to police. It's hard to fight an enemy that you cannot see. But it's awfully hard to fight a government when you have no guns, as proven in Venezuela recently. https://www.cnn.com/2017/08/08/americas/venezuela-unrest/index.html
Hmmmm, weird. If the slaves had AR15s then maybe they wouldn't have been enslaved. Also, what brought about the 1st amendment? Probably so we could yell at slaves amirite? Seeing that stain on our society I see no need for the 1st amendment either. And seeing as how the cops were apparently afraid of a single kid with a gun I'd say that's pretty good evidence that an armed population might at least give a good fight if some other country somehow managed to invade. Sure, our own country could nuke us all to hell a million times over. So?
I was being sarcastic by the way, whatever the reason they made the 2nd, it has no impact on the discussion.
When posting links a polite person should provide a brief synopsis of the information contained within. Though the website hosting this article is well known for being hard left in ideology to the point of being down right Marxist in its views, I made the choice to view and see what the enemy was propagandizing. I was not disappointed. Here are a few points of my summary; 1. The author, Noah Shusterman, is an assistant professor of history at the Chinese University of Hong Kong. Of course this individual would have no inclination of allegiance to Marxist ideology... No? 2. The author is either being willfully disingenuous or has never read and supported any of the edicts laid out by pen within; a. The United States Declaration of Independence b. Preamble to and body of the Bill of Rights c. The Federalist Papers.
Well, I don't know. Did his prior position at Temple University indicate an allegiance to ancient Greece? Or maybe the Mayans? How about when he got has BA at Lewis & Clark College in Portland? Does that indicate an allegiance to American explorers? Probably it does, if you believe the Post is Marxist. barfo
Lewis and Clark College's socialist proclivities are well known to all. As left as a "school" can get. Probably should rename it after more appropriate historic figures as L and C would have no part of what is taught there nowadays.
