You are alone, except for me...

[Xavier_Onassis]

The Second Amendment referred to the local militias and that was simply code for the slave patrollers. apprehending and punishing slaves who were captured without passes. A good way for an influential plantation owner to eliminate the competition of smaller and less well-connected plantation owners was to bribe the patrollers to burn the little guy's passes and to sell his slaves.

[sirs]

So now the 2nd amendment was "code"??      The Bill of Rights, including the 2nd, had squat to do with slaves.  It had everything to do in trying to protect this new found country from the oppression that they just won their freedom from

[sirs]

It's stunning how some folks are sooo sharp, to determine that the rest of the Bill of Rights, can be referencing everyone, but only the 2nd amendment, without saying it, is code about slaves, and nothing more.  How convenient....and completely without a shred of validity to it     

[Plane]

The Second Amendment referred to the local militias and that was simply code for the slave patrollers. apprehending and punishing slaves who were captured without passes. A good way for an influential plantation owner to eliminate the competition of smaller and less well-connected plantation owners was to bribe the patrollers to burn the little guy's passes and to sell his slaves.

   This is very wild.

    Got a reference? I would like to read more about how "militia"  in the constitution only means "slave patrol " and doesn't really mean what it says.

[sirs]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Notice something that one would think a linguistic professor, who could discuss issues objectively, would make note of....the comma. 

While I've discussed this issue in far greater detail in previous posts, with Supreme court precedent to support my position, a far simpler rendering of the very clear 2nd amendment phasing demonstrates, with the comma, that while the founders knew that the security of the country would require the need for a well armed and regulated militia, regulated by the Government, that that should, and would not interfere with the citizenry to also be armed......in the event that a Government were to again become as oppressive as the English Government was becoming at that time

This is consistent with the Constitution in general, and the Bill of Rights specifically.....CLEAR parameters and LIMITS as to what the Federal Government would be allowed to perform.  Nothing about slaves, slave patrols, or muskets

[sirs]

The Second Amendment referred to the local militias and that was simply code for the slave patrollers. apprehending and punishing slaves who were captured without passes. A good way for an influential plantation owner to eliminate the competition of smaller and less well-connected plantation owners was to bribe the patrollers to burn the little guy's passes and to sell his slaves.

   This is very wild.

    Got a reference? I would like to read more about how "militia"  in the constitution only means "slave patrol " and doesn't really mean what it says.

You know, what xo referenced, may, (I say may, given xo's history on claims), but may be an accurate scenario of the time...that of the bribing of "slave patrols", giving wealthier plantation owners a leg up on the lesser ones.......all of which, of course, has absolutely nothing to do with the 2nd amendment to the Constitution, of the United States of America

[Xavier_Onassis]

The Second Amendment specifically mentions militias. Being as the Northerners were opposed to slavery, they did not specifically mention it. The Northerners felt threatened by British invading from Canada, the Southerners felt most threatened by slave rebellions, such as occurred in Haiti beginning in 1789 and on many Caribbean Islands. In the West, the threat was Indians, especially the Shawnee Confederacy.  And of course, hunting game was quite common because the country was overwhelmingly rural.

And of course, the guns in question were single shot affairs.

[sirs]

The Second Amendment specifically mentions militias.

Precisely...as needed to defend the brand new country, now referred to as the United States.  It ALSO, using the comma, SPECIFICALLY references that there is a need for the civilian population to also be armed, not just a well regulated militia....such a need, that their right shall not be infringed

Being as the Northerners were opposed to slavery, they did not specifically mention it.

So by virtue of clear unambiguous language, the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with slavery

hunting game was quite common because the country was overwhelmingly rural.  And of course, the guns in question were single shot affairs.

At the time....yes there was and yes they were....which both are completely irrelevant to the clear language of the 2nd amendment.  Sorry professor, you can't read into it, what isn't there

[Xavier_Onassis]

You read tons of meaning into a comma.

Go bugger yourself, sirs.

[Plane]

http://www.firearmscoalition.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=722:reforming-the-second-amendment&catid=19:the-knox-update&Itemid=144

 

The fact is that throughout our history, just as today, judges and justices often interpreted the Constitution in whatever way would best suit their desired outcome.  A standout example of federal judges expressing a universal, individual right view of the Second Amendment can be seen in the majority opinion penned by Chief Justice Taney in the infamous Dredd Scott decision.  In that decision, arguing against recognition of citizenship for blacks, Taney wrote; "It would give to persons of the negro race, ... the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, ... the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went." 

[sirs]

You read tons of meaning into a comma.

It's actually called reading for context.  You, a language professor of all people, should have been able to grasp that.  Noticed also how you could come to answer plane's simple inquiry either.  No surprise there

[Xavier_Onassis]

Militia does not mean "slave patrol", but a slave patrol would be considered a militia.

A difficult concept for the squishy minded, I realize. All slave patrols can be regarded as militia, since they protect the citizenry against escaped and murderous slaves like Nat Turner rampaging over the countryside.  When Monroe was governor of VA, there was a plot by some slaves and assorted free Blacks to kidnap him and hold him the ransom until slavery was abolished. Events in Haiti, Martinique and Guadeloupe and several British Caribbean Islands in which the slaves escaped and murdered their owners with machetes and assorted guns and garden tools were well known in the South.

All militia, however, were not slave patrols. In the West, the militias were used to protect against such things as Indians and Mormons. In my home town the county militia marched off to the Mexican War, won every battle, and when their promised year was over, they marched home, even though the war was not over.

It is like this: All slave patrols could be considered as militia.
Not all militia could be considered slave patrols.

Similar to: All peanut butter is a sandwich spread, yet not all sandwich spreads are peanut butter. Draw yourself a Venn diagram, or get your mommy to do it.

[sirs]

Militia does not mean "slave patrol"

Never said it did.  You're the one that made the irrational connection

but a slave patrol would be considered a militia.

Whatever...and if so, so what?  Has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment, or that the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed     

[sirs]

The Second Amendment referred to the local militias and that was simply code for the slave patrollers.

This was the part that Plane was asking about.  Your words.  Putting aside for the moment that militias and the rest of the civilian poulation are 2 distinct entities being referenced in the 2nd amendment, what/where is your source that militias, as outlined in the 2nd amendment referred to slave patrollers? 

Or more importantly, what's your support that the Second Amendment militias were simply code for the slave patrollers?  Your making these connections....based on.....what exactly?

[Xavier_Onassis]

It has to do with me knowing the history of this country and your abysmal ignorance of the same.

Slavery was an inseparable part of life in the pre Civil War South. Read some books written back then sometime.