Re: The reason for the second amendment: protection of slavery

[A Lynching]

Rudy twirted:

>
> But Virginia had serious, slave-related concerns. And she did not
agree to
> ratify without testimony by two high-profile, Anti-Federalist
Virginians,
> Patrick Henry and George Mason. They spoke about Article I,
Section 8,
> authorizing Congress to call forth, organize, arm, and discipline
the militia.
> Henry addressed, not what Congress might do in this capacity, but
what Congress
> might not do. He argued that, should Congress neglect or refuse to
arm or
> discipline their “last and best defense,†the militia would be
useless. Mason,
> approached from a different angle. He proposed an amendment
limiting the power
> of Congress to summon militia from one state to another without
the approval of
> the legislature of the state from which the militia was ordered to
march. Mason
> alleged, “On real emergencies, this legislative consent will
never be denied.â€

Recall this moment in United States history where a left wing black
fag president
was defeated by Americans exercising the right to organize a militia
against tyranny.

<https://cdn.theatlantic.com/thumbor/8PloBLRvdktiZfYiDaCy3i0-
K3U=/0x147:3423x2072/1600x900/media/img/upload/wire/2014/04/14/RTR3L
00I/original.jpg>

> Such arguments raise the question, against what dangers or threats
were Henry
> and Mason implying Virginia’s militia was a “last and best
defense?†Certainly
> not foreign military invasion. Against organized military forces,
Virginia’s
> militia had proven feckless. When charged by the British at
Camden, South
> Carolina in 1780, the militia fled. The unstated implication —
obvious then and
> disarm or even remove from the state the armed police force
standing between
> free whites and black slaves. This could not stand.
>
>
====================================================================
=============================================================
>
> The amendment was not written to allow the United States, or any
individual
> state, to defend against foreign invasion. State militias were
*worthless* in
> the war of independence, and in fact the slave states *refused* to
send their
> militias to fight against the British, because that would have led
to successful
> slave revolts.
>
> https://www.npr.org/2021/06/02/1002107670/historian-uncovers-the-
racist-roots-of-the-2nd-amendment
> https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/09/the-origins-
of-public-carry-jurisprudence-in-the-slave-south/407809/
> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/24/opinion/second-amendment-
slavery-james-madison.html
> https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/28/books/review/the-second-carol-
anderson.html
> https://www.thedailybeast.com/how-slave-owners-dictated-the-
language-of-the-2nd-amendment
> https://medium.com/the-new-leader/debunking-the-mythic-origin-of-
the-second-amendment-bfe06dc06946
>
> The amendment was to support slavery. This is not in rational
dispute.

No it wasn't. Slavery wasn't even an issue for the time.

Everyone had slaves and nobody thought anything of it.

You're not a rational person. Neither you nor the media make
rational arguments.