• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

No, The Second Amendment Was Not Primarily About Suppressing African Americans

Reptile

NES Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2006
Messages
27,995
Likes
20,265
Feedback: 123 / 0 / 0
Authored by Jonathan Turley,

The media has given highly favorable coverage to a new book by Dr. Carol Anderson, chair of Emory University’s Black Studies Department, that argues that “[the Second Amendment] was designed and has consistently been constructed to keep African Americans powerless and vulnerable.”

In interviews with media outlets like CNN and NPR Anderson’s theory is not challenged on the history and purpose of the Second Amendment.

Like the contested claims of the “1619” project (which posited that slavery was the motivation for the establishment of the colonies), there might be a reluctance by academics to raise the countervailing historical sources out of fear of being labeled insensitive, defensive, or even racist.

However, this is not a new theory and, while there were concerns at the time about slavery and uprisings, the roots of the Second Amendment can be traced largely to England and the fears of government oppression. The point is not to dismiss this consideration for some pro-slavery figures at the time but to put those statements in a more historically grounded and accurate context.

The book, “The Second: Race and Guns in a Fatally Unequal America,” is the latest work of Anderson who previously published “White Rage: The Unspoken Truth of Our Racial Divide.” NPR bills its interview as “Historian Carol Anderson Uncovers The Racist Roots Of The Second Amendment.”

In truth, this is not a new theory and was long preceded by more detailed accounts by figures like Carl Bogus who wrote the 1998 work The Hidden History of the Second Amendment. Carl T. Bogus, The Hidden History of the Second Amendment, 31 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 309 (1998); see also Carl T. Bogus, Race, Riots, and Guns, 66 S. CAL. L. REV. 1365 (1993). These works are worth reading as are the writings of my colleague Robert Cottrol (and my former colleague) Ray Diamond. See Robert J. Cottrol & Raymond T. Diamond, The Second Amendment: Toward an Afro-Americanist Reconsideration, 80 GEO. L.J. 309 (1991).

Bogus highlighted the quotes used later by Anderson, including a warning by Patrick Henry that the Constitution gave too much power to the federal government in the “common defense” and did not leave enough powers with the states to defend themselves. Bogus asked “What was Henry driving at? In 1788, Americans did not fear foreign invasion. Nor did Americans still harbor the illusion that the militia could effectively contest trained military forces.” His answer was slavery and its preservation.

Slavery was a matter discussed both at the Declaration of Independence and during the Constitutional debates. There were those who were concerned about efforts to abolish slavery as well as slave uprisings. However, the Second Amendment does not appear the result in whole or in large part due to those fears. The right to bear arms was viewed as a bulwark against oppression of citizens by the government. In Northern states where slavery was not as popular, the Second Amendment was an important guarantee against that danger of tyranny. For example, the Pennsylvania Constitution (that preceded the Constitution) included these provisions:

 
Henry was one of the leading anti-federalists of his day. He opposed a large centralized federal government. He didn't even like the constitution because he felt it gave too much power to a central authority that could override a state's right to determine their own destiny. He was one of the people who pushed for the bill of rights to curb government excesses. Can you imagine what kind of country we would be living in today if the bill of right didn't even exist? I really dislike the post-modern revisionist historians. I disliked them years ago and I dislike them today. They appeal to ignorant and uninformed people who would gladly accept anything.
 
“What was Henry driving at? In 1788, Americans did not fear foreign invasion. Nor did Americans still harbor the illusion that the militia could effectively contest trained military forces.”

Must've skipped over what happened 12-15 yrs prior to that.

Extra hilarious, since the militia was the bulk of the army, and was constantly fighting off Indian attacks in the west. It was also what put down several uprisings like Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion.

The entire premise that the state militias would comprise the bulk of the army and that the federal government would control few regular troops was at the entire core of the constitution. The idea of the federal government being a powerful military force was anathema to everyone. That is what Patrick Henry was driving at. He felt even the limited powers granted to the federal government were too much. He'd be stacking bodies today if he saw the shit the .gov was doing.

So to the author of that nonsense: eat a dick you racist piece of shit.
 
Extra hilarious, since the militia was the bulk of the army, and was constantly fighting off Indian attacks in the west. It was also what put down several uprisings like Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion.

The entire premise that the state militias would comprise the bulk of the army and that the federal government would control few regular troops was at the entire core of the constitution. The idea of the federal government being a powerful military force was anathema to everyone. That is what Patrick Henry was driving at. He felt even the limited powers granted to the federal government were too much. He'd be stacking bodies today if he saw the shit the .gov was doing.

So to the author of that nonsense: eat a dick you racist piece of shit.

Whats extra hilarious is the guy trying to make the argument is named Bogus!
 
Honestly do they just want part of the country to f*** off in? I quite literally can't understand how people can walk by anything and turn it into oppressing minorities or male domineering....or whatever the hell is up their ass that day... im honestly amazed at how people can be so freaking miserable all the time.

In context there were like 200 uprisings from 1619 to 1865 that's one a year no they weren't the forefront of anyone's mind because more than half of them were found out ahead of time and they killed the conspirators....
 
“What was Henry driving at? In 1788, Americans did not fear foreign invasion. Nor did Americans still harbor the illusion that the militia could effectively contest trained military forces.”

Must've skipped over what happened 12-15 yrs prior to that.
Good thing they weren’t concerned about the Royal Navy seizing our ships or the Brits coming down from Canada or Native American raids and skirmishes or anything.
 
Carol Anderson is either a genius or a f*cking moron.

Although I disagree with everything he wrote and would label him a f*cking moron, I can't help but admire how this junk is used to justify his salary and probably grants for his department.

I do also think he is a POS, because he is helping stir racial division and he is trying to take away one of the only things that makes all men and women equal regardless of skin color or gender. A gun is an equalizer.
 
When the 2a Was written I guarantee you they weren’t thinking about Black people they were a little more than cattle at that point.

You guys must’ve seen the article. Pro gun supporters have a new ally “Black people and the LGBT community”

Yeah I’m real surprised that people have been persecuted for years want guns..

I’d link it but it ain’t worth my time. It’s time for these liberals to get woke and realize.
Americans of any color or creed want a gun.

The ignorance of the media is beyond belief

Gun control on the other hand was specifically designed to “hold them down”. All it took for California to start their gun control shit was Black people to start carrying Guns...Because you know Black people are scary and guns are scary. You must realize Im being sarcastic.
 
Last edited:
The proper argument is that all gun control laws are rooted in racism and a desire to disarm the black community, former slaves first and foremost with the first control laws passed.
Current gun control and permit laws are used to disproportionately disarm the black community while ignoring how this actually makes the black community less safe.
 
The proper argument is that all gun control laws are rooted in racism and a desire to disarm the black community, former slaves first and foremost with the first control laws passed.
Current gun control and permit laws are used to disproportionately disarm the black community while ignoring how this actually makes the black community less safe.

It’s 2021. We’re all black at this point
 
The proper argument is that all gun control laws are rooted in racism and a desire to disarm the black community, former slaves first and foremost with the first control laws passed.
Current gun control and permit laws are used to disproportionately disarm the black community while ignoring how this actually makes the black community less safe.

*gestures broadly at incarceration statistics for "illegal" firearm possession*
 
i often wonder how far along in history did the word "black", "negro" or "african" show up in front of crispus attucks name after he was killed. i don't know but i'd bet not when it happened cause nobody really gave a shit.
 
*gestures broadly at incarceration statistics for "illegal" firearm possession*
Ironically, under Bummer, enforcement for federal violations for things like straw buyers, dropped like a stone.
Bloomers has never been asked to answer for his racist statement that the black community should not be allowed to own guns.
My view is that just because a small percentage within a given community commits and hugely disproportionate percentage of crime, that doesn't mean the whole of that community should be treated as potential criminals. (Universities already do this to the entire male student body).
 
Ironically, under Bummer, enforcement for federal violations for things like straw buyers, dropped like a stone.
Bloomers has never been asked to answer for his racist statement that the black community should not be allowed to own guns.
My view is that just because a small percentage within a given community commits and hugely disproportionate percentage of crime, that doesn't mean the whole of that community should be treated as potential criminals. (Universities already do this to the entire male student body).

I'm right there with you. Just saying that if you want to support the argument that gun control's origin and enforcement are both racist (we should be blasting this argument at the lefties like a gd firehose), the FBI's statistics for firearm possession convictions will back you up.
 
i often wonder how far along in history did the word "black", "negro" or "african" show up in front of crispus attucks name after he was killed. i don't know but i'd bet not when it happened cause nobody really gave a shit.
It was in contemporary news articles.

A mulatto man, named Crispus Attucks, who was born in Framingham, but lately belonged to New-Providence and was here in order to go for North Carolina, also killed instantly, two balls entering his breast, one of them in special goring the right lobe of the lungs and a great part of the liver most horribly.
Source:
The Boston Gazette and Country Journal, March 12, 1770
1623956147908.png
 
Last edited:
I'm right there with you. Just saying that if you want to support the argument that gun control's origin and enforcement are both racist (we should be blasting this argument at the lefties like a gd firehose), the FBI's statistics for firearm possession convictions will back you up.
NC house is submitting, again, another bill to repeal the the Pistol Purchase Permit law. This requires anyone buying a handgun to get a permission slip from the county sheriff vif they do not have a concealed handgun permit (CHP). It is a Jim Crow law that was passed to create a barrier to the black community exercising their 2A rights. The NAACP and the Sheriff's association have always opposed a repeal, until now. The NAACP still opposes repealing this Jim Crow law. But the Sheriff's association supports it this time. They finally saw how radical liberal sheriff's in the state got during COVID. Many shut down the permit process entirely, denying 2A rights to everyone in the county that didn't already have a CHP. Every one of those sheriff's got a smack down from the state courts.
My state rep is a lefty SJW libtard. So I use shame in emails to convince him he needs to be on the correct side. No rep, Hispanic or otherwise, should be supporting ANY Jim Crow law.
 
Best was a guy I worked with telling me once that the 45 Aseepee 1911 was developed during the Vietnam war to stop the drugged up NVA who would charge the soldiers. [rofl] [rofl] [rofl]

I think I silently gave him a 10% credit for his description. He was in teh Coast Guard Reserves, so he knew things. ROFL!!!
 
The proper argument is that all gun control laws are rooted in racism and a desire to disarm the black community, former slaves first and foremost with the first control laws passed.
Current gun control and permit laws are used to disproportionately disarm the black community while ignoring how this actually makes the black community less safe.
Mountain States Legal Foundation's Center to Keep And Bear Arms effectively backs this up: The Racist Reality of Gun Control | National Review
 
Back
Top Bottom