Gun Control is Black Control?

[sirs]

   Who said that hunting was the focus of the NRA's founders?

    Sounds from reading this today that it was founded by Union Generals that were not satisfied with the number of Rebels that fell per thousand rounds fired at them.

That's what I've been trying to impress the Professor with....facts.  He's intent on ignoring them apparently to hang on to the erroneous theory that the NRA was founded on nothing more than better hunting for hunters.  And I still think he clings to the other erroneous notion that the 2nd amendment was geared towards hunting down slaves.  Talk about getting it all bass-ackwards
 
 

[Xavier_Onassis]

Most of the people who wrote the Constitution owned slaves.

The British told slaves that they would be given their freedom if they ran away and sought refuge behind the British lines.
The revolutinaries considered this to be a most despicable act. It turned out to be very despicable, because when the British were blockaded  between the French Navy at Yorktown and Washington's Army, and were running out of provisions, they expelled the Blacks that had come to them for refuge.

But according to you, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe did not even THINK about slavery when the wrote the Constitution.
Nary a thought passed by their minds.

Of course, the Federal government in 1789 was far to weak to take away anyone's guns. The British tried to disarm the people, but were not very successful. But they did make a lot of rural people very angry.

[sirs]

I can't read minds like you apparently can.  I can only go by what's been written,  and what was written, especially as it relates to the 2nd Amendment,  included not 1 hint of slaves.  Your (ir)rationalizations aside. The Constitution is pretty darn clear, especially the Bill of Rights

[Xavier_Onassis]

Each and every word of the Bill of Rights was written to guarantee that these Amendments would get a majority of the vote. So since slavery was an understood major part of the economy, but unpopular with the people of the North, it was simply not mentioned except when absolutely necessary.  The Founding Fathers had far better diplomatic skills than clowns like Paul, Cruz, and Trump . Jefferson served for 32 years in various political offices before he became president: he was the ambassador to France.  He was very diplomatic.

[Plane]

Most of the people who wrote the Constitution owned slaves.

Most?

The British told slaves that they would be given their freedom if they ran away and sought refuge behind the British lines.
The revolutinaries considered this to be a most despicable act. It turned out to be very despicable, because when the British were blockaded  between the French Navy at Yorktown and Washington's Army, and were running out of provisions, they expelled the Blacks that had come to them for refuge.

I didn''t know about this , Oh those British, ....

But according to you, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe did not even THINK about slavery when the wrote the Constitution.

Jefferson ? Wasn't he in France at this time?  Madison and Monroe were the sort to give a slave some acreage , even if they had to make the acreage in Africa.

Nary a thought passed by their minds.

It is my impression that Slavery was one of the hot topics with about half of the congress wanting more of it and half wanting less of it, Compromises were made , some of which set us up to nearly fall apart seventy years later.

Of course, the Federal government in 1789 was far to weak to take away anyone's guns. The British tried to disarm the people, but were not very successful. But they did make a lot of rural people very angry.

  I think they made to people of Boston very angry too. One of the clues we have as to how the colonies were armed is the inventory the British kept of what they confiscated in Boston. There was a wide variety of small arms, which is a disadvantage when you are trying to fight and keep the guns fed.
    I expect that since this was originally a band of revolutionaries they were very likely agreed on the value of guns in public hands. As plainly stated by many of them they were worried that the government would become corrupted and need to be corrected by another revolution.

    There was some experience with slave rebellion and escape, and perhaps this was considered , but if it were considered an important feature of the constitution  and the right to have weapons, why not denote it specifically? Slavery itself was mentioned and set in new limits, I would suppose that the use of force on slaves was assumed , and is one of the things that the half of them against slavery were specifically offended by.

A list of North American Slave rebellions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Miguel_de_Gualdape

[Xavier_Onassis]

Mentioning slave rebellion, which occurred in Hispaniola, in the French colony of Saint-Domingue, on a regular basis, upset slave owners and those who opposed slavery alike.  The Makandal Rebellion in Haiti and similar rebellions in the Virgin Islands (then Danish) and Jamaica (British) were well-known and in the news. Speaking about maroon enclaves of escaped slaves dedicated to murdering Plantation owners violently in raids and teaching the house servants how to poison their masters were considered improper topics of conversation in those times, just as the elite do not discuss their children becoming addicts to crack and meth today. But such occurrences were on the mind of many. The Spanish colony of Florida before it was annexed to the US in 1819, offered refuge to escaped slaves from Georgia and the Carolinas at Ft. Mose.

Slavery was a controversial topic to such a degree that the House of Representatives banned all mention of it for several years before the Civil War. Polite Southerners did not use the term "slave" in polite conversation: slaves were called "servants" by their masters. Slavery was considered an improper subject of discussion, just as it is improper today to ask people details about their salary, their mortgage or their personal finances. It was a taboo topic, and thius not mentioned in the constitution except when necessary.

[sirs]

Not written,  then it's not there.  Simple as that

[Plane]

It was a taboo topic, and thius not mentioned in the constitution except when necessary.

  Why was it necessary enough to mention elsewhere , but not made part of the second amendment?

   I don't agree that this was a taboo topic, there is plenty of examples of its being discussed to exhaustion, in newspapers and in public .

    The modern equivalent might be the Abortion debate , everyone was weary of speaking of it after decades of squabble , but there was a lot of commitment to the side on both sides.

[Xavier_Onassis]

It was a taboo topic for discussion in the US government, because it was seen as divisive. You will find very few public laws or documents that mention slavery directly before the British abolished slavery in 1833.

Everyone, both North and South was, of course, opposed to the possible establishment of maroon quilombos in the backwoods as existed in Brazil and in many of the Caribbean islands. No one wanted guerrilla armies of African ex slaves attacking White settlements.

[Plane]

It was a taboo topic for discussion in the US government, because it was seen as divisive. You will find very few public laws or documents that mention slavery directly before the British abolished slavery in 1833.

This does not seem to be true, there are a lot of sermons recorded on the subject, debates in Parliament and in Congress and senate, laws written and newspaper articles and advertisements. I think you are reaching afar on this point , do you want to see some slave sale advertisements?

Everyone, both North and South was, of course, opposed to the possible establishment of maroon quilombos in the backwoods as existed in Brazil and in many of the Caribbean islands. No one wanted guerrilla armies of African ex slaves attacking White settlements.

Yes , thus gun control .

Refer back to the original posts in this thread and Justice Taney's opinion in the Dred Scott case.

[Xavier_Onassis]

That was LONG  AFTER the period in which the Constitution was written and is therefore irrelevant.

[sirs]

Not written,  then it's not there.   Simple as that

[Plane]

That was LONG  AFTER the period in which the Constitution was written and is therefore irrelevant.

  I don't think so , justice Taney was trying to use the constitution to prevent what the constitution grantees for citizens.

   He thought it ridiculous that Black people should be allowed guns, since all citizens have the right to firearms it must be ridiculous to consider a Black person a citizen.

    The constitution was written , then the constitution was operated it is a continuing process.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Nothing said in 1857 had one damned thing to do with what was in the minds of different people who wrote the Bill of Rights in previous generations.

[sirs]

And nothing in the Bill of Rights had anything to do with slavery.