The overwhelming historical evidence and weight of judicial precedent support the position that the Second Amendment was intended and designed to protect a militia-based right.Well gee, Kristen Rand, I repeat the challenge. If what you say is true, you should have no problem producing reams of quotes from the founders supporting your contention.
There is also strong scholarship to support the argument that James Madison wrote the amendment primarily to allay southern fears that Congress would undermine the slave system by disarming the militia - thereby denying the southern states an effective means of slave control. Under this longstanding interpretation of the amendment, the district's handgun ban would survive.Yep, no doubt about it--the historical affinity for keeping blacks disarmed by the establishment would be affirmed. Why don't you just come out and say it, instead of making it sound like you have some kind of noble purpose?
You're getting desperate, Kristen. And as for making DC the model for the rest of the nation, you just aren't paying attention to public sentiment, are you? Or maybe you are, and that's why your yappings are becoming more urgent, more shrill...
I've heard this latest "Guns are racist" spin a few times already.
ReplyDeleteKristen can produce reams, alright,but not in evidence. I love how she uses "overwhelming", and "weight", and "strong scholarship", anything, to avoid that one little phrase, "the right of the people". And why this concern that the districts handgun ban wouldn't "survive?" When you erect barriers to human rights, when you erect systems to enervate, enslave, and dull the human spirit, you worry that your little fiefdom built on human misery may collapse, and horrors! The peasants are free from your Marxist sewage. I've often wondered at how ambition becomes an all consuming lust to make your fellow man into an obediant, industrious, sheep. She is lower than a snakes' belly in a wagon rut.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJudging from this, at least part of the "strong scholarship" (a rather large part, I'd wager) behind the assertion that the Second Amendment was intended to protect slavery comes from this work, by (the ironically named) Professor Bogus. That irony is made especially rich by the fact that in searching through that article (or "Article," as Bogus insists on calling it--ego issues, perhaps?), one finds that it heavily cites the thoroughly discredited work of Micheal A. Bellesiles--not exactly confidence-inspiring, is it?
ReplyDelete