Thom Hartman: The 2nd Amendment was ratified to help preserve slavery.

[X_Digger]

51. Lol, two sentences about two states (well three _sentences_).

This was the section of a previous post of mine that I quoted from:

http://www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev/WhatStateConstitutionsTeach.htm (sections rearranged by me)

[div class='excerpt']The present-day Pennsylvania Constitution, using language adopted in 1790, declares: "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."

Vermont: Adopted in 1777, the Vermont Constitution closely tracks the Pennsylvania Constitution. It states "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State.."

Kentucky: The 1792 Kentucky constitution was nearly contemporaneous with the Second Amendment, which was ratified in 1791. Kentucky declared: "That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State, shall not be questioned."

Delaware: "A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use."

Alabama: The Alabama Constitution, adopted in 1819, guarantees "that every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state"

Arizona and Washington: These states were among the last to be admitted to the Union.* Their right to arms language is identical: "The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men."

Illinois: "Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."**

(footnotes removed)

That's a mighty big nit you're tugging on, lol.

Are the quoted state constitutions wrong? Or are you just attacking the source because you can't address the substance? Hrmm. I know what my money's on.

In post-revolutionary America, different states faced different threats. In the case of Vermont and other northern border states, the British were still in Canada and considered a major threat. In other states, there was still on-going genocide of native tribes. While I suppose that would deflect the idea that the only reason it was included was to appease the southern states, it does not provide proof that: 1) The southern states would have signed on without it, 2) That state militias were a tool to preserve slavery, 3) That northern states would have not ratified the Constitution without it. I would also add that there was a significant amount of southern propaganda in the north about how dangerous fugitive slaves were.

You're presupposing your own conclusion- there would be no need to protect a right to bear arms by citizens if it were strictly about state militias. These are state constitutions- what, was the Vermont legislature afraid that it would disarm itself? It does not follow. But I'm glad you reject Bogus' main premise, that the second was 'appeasement' to the South.

Re: 1 -- It was never meant to show the Southern states would have, absent the 2nd. Bogus makes the claim, but never directly supports it. He throws the worst uses of the militias as 'proof', but does not link it to proposal or ratification. Those are the dots that he never connects. The states could have 'deputized' gangs of armed men to do their dirty work, with or without the second amendment.

Re: 2 -- Who has denied that in some states, the militias were used to support slavery? *looks around* Not me.

At the same time, however, that does not support one way or the other, the premise that the second amendment was passed as appeasement to the South. Southern states had militias in their respective constitutions, and the right to bear arms as well. Not having it in the federal constitution doesn't make the state protected right go away.

It's right there in the preamble to the bill of rights-

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

This, I think, is where a lot of folks go off the rails. Rights aren't granted by the federal constitution, they are protected by it. That generation of thinkers, based on the Enlightenment philosophers, believed that rights are a part of being human. Whether deriving from God, god, or some nebulous Creator, they considered them inherent in the human condition.

My take from this is that fugitive slaves and slave rebellion may not have been the only reason for including the 2nd Amendment, but it was likely a significant motivator and sweetened the pot for southern states. I don't see much motivation for any state, in the context of late 18th century to oppose ratification of the 2nd Amendment and not create their own state militias. Why piss off Virginia for no gain?

Again, you're presupposing that the second amendment (or state analogues) are strictly about militias. State constitutions had that covered quite well, thanks.

The debates surrounding the bill of rights, and what eventually became the second amendment, makes no mention of the concern that Bogus (or you) suppose might have existed. Visit the Library of Congress' transcripts at http://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/billofrights.html