LINK If the Second Amendment Was Meant for Genocide, Is It Sacred? - TheHumanist.com
If the Second Amendment had been written in a society that mostly used guns for hunting, one would assume it had to do with hunting. If it had been written in a society that mostly used guns as art objects in museums, one would assume that’s what it was about. If it had been written in a society where guns were commonly used to resist government oppression, well that would then be its meaning. But none of those scenarios is connected to reality. The fact is that the Second Amendment was written in a society where guns were used—individually, in small groups, and in regulated militias—primarily and routinely to commit genocide and to maintain slavery.
2
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
4 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.By only slightly widening the general meaning of the term "commit genocide and maintain slavery" one could argue that that we live in a world - if not a society - where that is still the main purpose of guns. I guess I'm also widening the general meaning of the term "gun" to include everything from handguns to hydrogen bombs. That phrase makes me want to write a book - well, at least an essay - with that title.
FreeDave
Level 6
Apr 11, 2018
1
Even if that were 100% accurate, history has shown what has happened to societies that disarm themselves...and slavery starts an entirely new revolution.
I prefer the 2nd Amendment stay intact and I hope you do as well.
If you do decide to freely disarm yourself and rely on a government with a poor track record, I'll protect you...?
FinchiMcQ
Level 6
Apr 6, 2018
1
I am disarmed to begin with Finch, besides my knives and a machete. If the government comes after me it won't be for my guns.
The 2nd Amendment will stay intact regardless of the banning of assault rifles and magazines.
If the government comes after you, do you really think you will persevere with the weapons you own?
In this country slavery didn't start a revolution, it started a civil war.
In "We were Soldiers" when the Colonel says to the First Sergeant, "we better get you one of those new automatic rifles, Sergeant. Major" And the Sergeant Major says, "There'll be plenty of 'um layin' on the ground if it comes to that."
It is more likely it had to do with the suppresstion of the predicessors of nearly all early Americans by the system in Europe. European countries had standing armies by which to suppress the common people. The framers of the Constitution wanted a means of keeping our country from becoming like those in Europe.
Note that there were no "gun dealers" nor NRA when the Constitution was written.
dahermit
Level 7
Apr 2, 2018
1
Neither were there Semi and Automatic guns, handguns, magazines or machine guns when the Constitution was written dahermit, Keerist there weren't even bullets man. There were single shot muskets.
Our right to Freedom of Travel was turned into a Privilege with the advent of the automobile, a potentially deadly weapon in the wrong or inexperienced operators hands.
Why aren't similar laws to driving applied to gun ownership and operation?
I don't think your statement is any more likely at all.
@zblaze Where in the Constitution does it say that we cannot have Semi and Automatic guns (guns of war)? Read the 9th and 10th Amendments. And yes, there WERE bullets back then...bullets are the part that flies through the air so to say there were not "bullets" back then demonstrates ignorance of firearms and ammunition. Also, there is no "right" to own a car and therefore that "privilege" may be infringed as per the will of the states. The words, "...shall not be infringed." should indicate how the founders viewed gun regulations. Oh, by the way, there WERE handguns back then.
From the article: Dunbar-Ortiz claims that gun culture runs so deep in the United States, that public opinion is the problem, not NRA lobbying. I think this is important but only partly true, as it ignores the fact that opinion polls favor restrictions on guns that Congress will not enact, as well as the fact that the strongest supporters of the gun dealers in Congress are also the best funded by said gun dealers. Still, Dunbar-Ortiz reports that nearly 75 percent of the US populace believes that guns are a source of political rights and power. Certainly many believe this across the political spectrum. And it’s patent nonsense. It’s belief accommodating itself to a so-called sacred amendment that should be no more sacred than any other antiquated tool of genocide.
zblaze
Level 7
Apr 2, 2018
3
"...opinion polls favor restrictions on guns that Congress will not enact..." Note the people participating in the polls are very ignorant of the content of the Constitution, only listening to what is parroted by anti-gun zealots who are equally ignorant as to the content of the Constitution.
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.