Gun Advocate Shocks CNN Co-Panelist: Slavery Potentially Wouldn’t Have Happened if Bl

[natina]

Gun Advocate Shocks CNN Co-Panelist: Slavery Potentially Wouldn’t Have Happened if Blacks Had Guns


Larry Ward, chairman of “Gun Appreciation Day (GAD) (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01/07/have-you-heard-there-will-be-a-gun-appreciation-day/)” and president of Political Media, Inc., raised eyebrows — and debate — today with a controversial statement he made about firearms and slavery. Arguing that guns are essential to preserving Americans’ freedom and liberty, Ward said on CNN that, had African Americans been armed, the institution of human servitude might not color the nation’s past. TheBlaze spoke with the advocate following the segment to clarify his remarks.
“I think Martin Luther King would agree with me, if he were alive today, that if African Americans had been given the right to keep and bear arms from day one of the country’s founding, perhaps slavery might not have been a chapter in our history,” he proclaimed in the CNN interview. “And I believe wholeheartedly that it’s essential to liberty.”
His on-air opponent, Maria Roach of United for Change USA, immediately called his claim “ridiculous,” (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/gun-appreciation-day-leader-to-cnn-if-blacks-had-guns-they-never-would-have-been-slaves/) going on to subsequently dismiss Ward’s GAD efforts



http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01/11/gun-appreciation-day-chairman-if-blacks-had-guns-its-possible-slavery-wouldnt-have-happened/



Gun Activist: If Blacks Had Guns, They Wouldn't Have Been Slaves - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-kODv28bAc&feature=player_embedded)

[yodajazz]

Here's a view, I had not thought of before. The Second Amendment was written specifically to empower the slave patrol militias of the day. The amendment guaranteed that their power could not be taken away by the Federal government. The militias had specific duties, including insuring that slaves did not possess offensive weapons.

http://truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery

[trish]

Yeah, I caught that article earlier today. I'm glad you posted it. I'm curious what our resident historians make of it.

[Stavros]

I am not convinced -on the one hand slaves were not considered people, but 'intelligent livestock', or property. 'Slave patrols' therefore existed to protect property; the 'slave patrol' only acquires a morally objectionable profile if you think slavery is immoral, but most of the Founding Fathers were slave-owners themselves and not opposed to it. In the specific context of the southern States both Henry and Mason were known for their extremist views, indeed, their rigid approach to the classification of Blacks as 'property' endured into the crisis over slavery itself and an inability to accept Black people as equals, a problem that persists to the present day.

If the argument is unclear, it is because it was possible for Black 'people' to bear arms: slaves were recruited by the British during the Revolutionary War on the promise of their freedom, and there were slaves who were freed in some of the northern Colonies who became part of the armed militias of what became states after 1776.

I feel that the more I read of the 2nd Amendment the less secure is my prior contention that it does not give rights to individuals; there also seems to be some debate about the difference in constitutional literature between the words and phrases, such as 'to bear arms', and 'to keep arms'.

Retrospective thinking elides the contempory view of violence and politics prevalent in 1766, heavily influenced as it was by the prior experience of the English Ciivil War, and the restoration of the Stuart monarchy which followed, the Game Act of 1671 that effectively stripped the majority population of its right to own weapons, theoretically but not universally restored in the Bill of Rights of 1689 as a means of giving Protestants 'protection' from the increasingly hated Catholics, and so on. The Founding Fathers were heavily influenced by English Law, but were also developing a culturally distinct legal environment, more influenced by its American context, thus the fascinating distinnction, which perhaps encapsulates some of the American issues today:

But underlying the gun control struggle is a fundamental division in our nation. The intensity of passion on this issue suggests to me that we are experiencing a sort of low-grade war going on between two alternative views of what America is and ought to be. On the one side are those who take bourgeois Europe as a model of a civilized society: a society just, equitable, and democratic; but well ordered, with the lines of responsibility and authority clearly drawn, and with decisions made rationally and correctly by intelligent men for the entire nation. To such people, hunting is atavistic, personal violence is shameful, and uncontrolled gun ownership is a blot upon civilization.

On the other side is a group of people who do not tend to be especially articulate or literate, and whose world view is rarely expressed in print. Their model is that of the independent frontiersman who takes care of himself and his family with no interference from the state. They are "conservative" in the sense that they cling to America's uniquepre-modern tradition—a non-feudal society with a sort of medieval liberty at large for everyman. To these people, "sociological" is an epithet. Life is tough and competitive. Manhood means responsibility and caring for your own.
HANDGUN PROHIBITION AND THE ORIGINAL MEANING OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT, John B. Kates.
http://69.163.249.186/2ll/2ndschol/57mich.pdf

[Prospero]

Good piece from you Stavros - especially the final paragraphs quoting from John B Kates. A neat summation of the essential divide i think. And a good pointer to why so many Europeans find the pro-gun position so hard to understand. It runs counter to some deeply held ideas we share about what constitutes a civilised society.

As for the OP material. It's just another ludicrous twisting of ideas to try to cling to the right to bear assault weapons. But on the day that Obama announced his package its just another reminder of the huge struggle ahead.

[fred41]

Here's a view, I had not thought of before. The Second Amendment was written specifically to empower the slave patrol militias of the day. The amendment guaranteed that their power could not be taken away by the Federal government. The militias had specific duties, including insuring that slaves did not possess offensive weapons.

http://truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery

I believe this is the paper that those articles are based on. Carl t. Bogus wrote it in 1998. If you want to read it (about 100 pages or so) you can download it from this site.
Figure I'd save you the five minutes it would take to find it yourselves. It is an interesting premise...but I can't find any other person that did the same research and came to the same conclusion. If anyone else does please post it.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1465114

[yodajazz]

I believe this is the paper that those articles are based on. Carl t. Bogus wrote it in 1998. If you want to read it (about 100 pages or so) you can download it from this site.
Figure I'd save you the five minutes it would take to find it yourselves. It is an interesting premise...but I can't find any other person that did the same research and came to the same conclusion. If anyone else does please post it.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1465114

It makes a very logical premise. I recall reading about the 'slave patrols', in history studies. There had to be a legal framework for them to exist. And in a larger context, couldn't the "militia" referred to in the amendment, be we consider today to be state police? That also to say that militia is an entity outside the federal government. And that does not say that 'arms' possession cannot be regulated, for the general population. I would add, that 'arms' does not mean all arms. And definitely not "all arms", ever to be created. Two major concepts governing the regulation of operation of motor vehicles are safety, and responsibility. Human sense should say that those concepts should also be part of gun possession. I don't see the 2nd Amendment as preventing these concepts from being used, either. This overall issue is about safety. But then again, motor vehicle registration, is ultimately about responsibility. They can also be instruments of death, or used for criminal purposes. So identification helps to give responsibility to ownership. I should really say the the overall issues, are both safety and responsibility.