Burch: The South's sordid secret

Friday, February 22, 2013 at 5:54pm
By Michael R. Burch

As “guns in trunks” becomes the ridiculous law of the land, joining “guns in bars” and “guns in parks,” it’s time to reveal one of the South’s most sordid secrets: the state militias sanctioned by the Second Amendment were almost certainly slave control militias.

The Second Amendment states: “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.”

What this really meant was: “A brutal police state being necessary for white people to live in the lap of luxury at the expense of black slaves, the right of white men to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

The term “free Country” appeared in James Madison’s original version of the Second Amendment. But it was changed to appease slave owners because they wanted to protect slavery, and that required armed state militias capable of “putting the fear of God” in slaves. Southerners knew that the slavery-hating free states would not help them put down slave insurrections; thus they needed state militias, not to defend freedom, but tyranny.

Slavery required police states. Unfortunately for the more enlightened founding fathers, if they wanted to have a Union, they would have to make a “deal with the Devil” by endorsing a white Gestapo.

At the time Madison changed the wording of the Second Amendment to appease slaveholders, eight states had ratified the proposed Constitution, but a ninth was needed to make it official. The fate of the United States hung in the balance, because four states were opposed to ratification. The last best hope for a “more perfect Union” was Virginia.

Jefferson and Madison were Virginians, and slaveholders. Thus, the primary authors of the foundational documents of then-fledgling Union knew full well what it would take to seal the deal. Virginians would have to be assured that they could keep their slaves, which meant assuring them that they could keep their militias, because the former could not continue without the latter.

The southern militias were not small affairs. Far from it. They were huge, compulsory networks. George Mason, who has been called the “Father of the Bill of Rights,” confirmed that the southern militias were comprised of all white male citizens with only a few exceptions, saying: “Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.” (Mason didn’t consider women, children or people with darker skin to be “people.”)

These extensive militias had become part and parcel of southern society. Two decades before the Revolutionary War, the state of Georgia passed laws that required all plantation owners or their white male employees to enlist. In her book Slave Patrols: Law and Violence in Virginia and the Carolinas, Sally E. Haden explains that, with only a few exceptions such as judges, legislators and students, nearly every white man in Virginia and the Carolinas became a slave patroller between the ages 18 and 45, even physicians and ministers!

By the time the founding fathers got together to hammer out a Constitution and Bill of Rights, there had been hundreds of slave uprisings across the South. So it should come as no surprise that Jefferson wrote: “... our combustion must be near at hand; and only a single spark is wanting to make that day to-morrow ... if something is not done and done soon, we shall be the murderers of our own children.”

Some slaveholders were concerned that the proposed Constitution, which gave the federal government the power to raise and supervise a militia, could result in a federal militia that absorbed the state militias and ended up freeing the slaves they had been keeping in chains. And there had been just such a precedent. Twelve years earlier, Lord Dunsmore had offered freedom to slaves who escaped and joined his forces. So it was no idle fear that slaves might be emancipated through military service.

Thus, the deal with the Devil was made. White southern men would have the right to bear arms, to form state militias, to whip slaves who showed any sign of wanting freedom, and to track them down like wild animals if they escaped. Now the NRA insists that the Second Amendment is entirely about “freedom,” but the graves of dead slaves and schoolchildren say otherwise.

Michael R. Burch is a Nashville-based editor and publisher of Holocaust poetry and other “things literary” at www.thehypertexts.com.

55 Comments on this post:

By: MusicCity615 on 2/22/13 at 5:17

I'm an independent, and for gun control, but can we please have some articles about America's ridiculous debt of $16.4 Trillion? we are on the path to greece! I think we need some tax increases on the wealthy, and to get out of war, but tax increases are not enough- we have to control spending and neither Bush nor Obama has controlled spending.

We have a serious issue on hand that not enough people are talking about...

By: Rasputin72 on 2/22/13 at 5:26

I wonder how many millons of lives were lost to tyranny and dictatorships by men who were not fortunate enough to live in a country with a second amendment.

As far as the second amendment and its origin being to keep the Negro slaves in line, I believe you can perceive almost anything and of course what is perceived is real to those that perceive it.

In my case, it is my perception that the true cost of a cotton dress shirt because of slavery and the cost of crime, entitlements,welfare,subsidzed housing and etc is somewhere between 15,000 and 20,000 dollars a shirt and rising.

Slavery a nasty and dispicable business that defies any contemporary thought process in the world today. We reap what we sow.

By: bfra on 2/22/13 at 5:45

5:26 comment - What a bunch of crock!

By: dargent7 on 2/22/13 at 5:47

Great piece.
The interpretation and permutation of the Second Amendment is so absurd in America.
As if those amazing "Founding Fathers" "just knew" we as a people/ society needed AR-15's, Glocks, Berettas with extended 33 round magazines for protection in the 20th century.
And beyond.

By: yogiman on 2/22/13 at 7:30


I believe if you studied "ancient" history you would find there was also white slaves and black slave owners.

So what's the big difference in slavery, who owned the most?

By: yogiman on 2/22/13 at 7:32


If you're looking forward to become a slave to your dictator, hang in there with Barry. It won't be much longer if he gets to pull it off.

By: slacker on 2/22/13 at 7:56

Burch.. its really no secret, that slave holders used firearms, and other brutality, to oppress slaves. Sordid no doubt, but not a secret. I don't think anyone thinks that the slaves were controlled by kind words, and gentle persuasion.

Maybe next week, you can expound on how Japanese Americans, were made political prisoner's, and placed in camps after the Pearl Harbor attack.
And don't forget the ''Trial Of Tears'', you can get a least two columns out of that sad affair.. Mikey.

Spread the hand-wringing around, give southerners an occasional break. The Chinese and Irish, building the railroad, coal miners, etc. A long list indeed.
Mikey, I do hate to tell you this.. but honestly, people are already carrying guns in their cars. Law or no law.. and that's no secret either.

By: yogiman on 2/23/13 at 6:30

Correct me if I'm wrong, Mike,but weren't former slaves and all future Negroes of the USA given the same right as the former slave owners to own a gun?

I know they were subjected to segregation too many decades after the Civil War but I knew quite a few in my 'younger days' that owned guns. Were they violating the laws of the Constitution?

Did the 2nd Amendment become obsolete by technicality at the end of the Civil War?

By: yogiman on 2/23/13 at 8:53

Question: Can any of you Obama admiring fans explain why your man Barry banned God from funerals of war veterans?


Could it possibly be because he is an atheist... or just possibly a Muslim and he doesn't want God mentioned?

Wonder if he would also want Allah not mentioned.

By: Ask01 on 2/23/13 at 10:58

Mike, the truly sordid secret borne by the South is the underlying racism rampant throughout the region.

While paying lip service to the notion of equality, many of the older Southern whites, and some of the younger generation still cling to the romanticized version of a lost empire, cloaked in civility, manners, and privilege.

I sometime wonder if the true reason for weapons advocates clinging to their firearms is a belief the 'minorotites' are prone to violence and crime, and are plotting to overthrow their kingdom of the mind.

Naturally, the upper classes lump the so called 'white trash' in with the minority danger, but tolerate them as necessary to their defense strategy. They will, of course, turn on them once they have served their purpose. The lower classes have no idea, it seems, deluding themselves into thinking they are equal partners in the resurrected Dixie nation.

I believe this is the sordid secret of the modern south.

If there remains any doubt, just examine some of the rhetoric on display around the internet. Even after four years, with four more to go, many continue to work themselves into a spittle flecked rage over a black man as president.

By: govskeptic on 2/23/13 at 11:26

What a crock to attempt to add numbers and additional racist hysteria or added gun control laws. It's an alarming number of folks that are so sorry to have been born within the wrong region of this country, in the wrong state, of the wrong race, and many of the wrong gender and their birth at the wrong age in history.

It must be a heavy burden to carry all that weight of the sins and wrongs by today's
descendants of those badmen we now call "Founding Fathers." I suppose curing
at the wind and blaming others through writings, postings, and teachings gives relief to many and erases or cleanest history within their souls. Oh, the fallacy of it all.

By: yogiman on 2/23/13 at 11:59


May I ask you a simple question? Yeah? Okay: It is a known fact the Negro race is only about 13% of our population. What race in this nation is guilty of the vast majority of crimes?

I agree with you there is still racists in this nation, black and white. And your 'buddy' Barack Hussein Obama is the most obvious one today.

By: yogiman on 2/23/13 at 2:50

A point to think about: Obama grew up as a Muslim as his father and stepfather were Muslims and he was shown as a Muslim in Indonesia.

According to the Qur'an it is acceptable to lie, deceive and live by a double standard if doing so advances one's Islamic goals.

Muslims only pretend to trust and be friends with non-Muslims. They have been taught non-Muslims are infidels.

Didn't Obama mention being a Muslim in an intervie with George Stephanopoulis?

By: Mike Burch on 2/23/13 at 3:51


Thanks for pointing out the article that inspired my article.

By: Mike Burch on 2/23/13 at 3:54


I will plan on doing an article on the debt. Needless to say, the last two wars have greatly increased the debt, directly, and even more so indirectly by causing a global recession when Iraq was invaded on false premises, and the price of oil skyrocketed. The global recession has undoubtedly cost millions of people their jobs and reduced economic growth by a large factor, resulting in higher government debts around the world.

By: Mike Burch on 2/23/13 at 3:58


As MLK said, when we sow injustice we can expect to reap the whirlwind. That was also the message of the Hebrew prophets.

But who sows injustice today? The right-wing "big dogs" ... so it's people like you who bring destruction in your wake (double entendre intended).

Be sure your sins will find you out: bigotry, lack of compassion, lack of social justice, etc.

By: Mike Burch on 2/23/13 at 4:03


Did black Americans ever own white slaves in the United States? Not to my knowledge. If they did, the ratio must have been 1 white slave to every million black slaves, so there is no rational comparison.

We don't say that if Cuba treats its citizens badly, that gives the US the right to mistreat its citizens. If there are cannibals on some remote island, that doesn't make cannibalism legal here in the US. So it makes absolutely no sense to say that somewhere in the world a black person had a white slave, as if that has anything to do with things here in the US today.

You might as well say that fictional Martians own fictional human slaves ... it makes no difference.

By: Mike Burch on 2/23/13 at 4:11


Muslims believe in God, so if Barack Obama is anti-God, that means he cannot be a Muslim. The birthers, as always, make no sense.

Birther "logic" works like this: we hate having a black president with a funny name, so we will make up two incompatible lies: that he is a Muslim and an atheist.

That is like saying that I am a human being and also an inanimate object. People with functional brains cannot make such ridiculous mistakes of logic. Hence, birthers must not have functional brains.

By: yogiman on 2/23/13 at 4:52

As I understand it, Mike, Muslims believe in their god known a Allah, not ours. But if Obama (if that's his name) believes in God, why has he banned God from veterans' funerals? How many times have you heard Obama mention God as along as he's been in office?

Mike, I understand you and your "friends" on this site don't know me, but I would be willing to make a bet (and I'm not a gambler) that I don't see Obama as a black man as much as you all do.

Race doesn't have anything to do with my 'argument' of his being in office. My argument has been, and is, the point he usurped that office.

If we still accept the Constitution as our guide, how can he be considered a natural born citizen?

One fact you all know (I think), he was adopted by his Indonesian stepfather so he could go to school there. How could he become a natural born citizen again, especially if he ever repatriated his citizenship? Which we don't know if he did, do we?

By: Rasputin72 on 2/23/13 at 5:41

Mike Burch.......The Hebrew prophets certainly were prophetic. This was a country that had every resource and advantage to build a democratic republic that could have lasted centuries. The one thing lacking was a conscience. No country that believes that just because a race of people look like slaves and have a culture foreign to civilized european culture that enslavement can be justified for ANY reason.

This is not only a terrible injustice to the Africans but will ultimately be a terrible injustice to the country itself. Every year we inch closer and closer to the crevace of a genetic and culture debacle.

By: Rasputin72 on 2/23/13 at 5:41

Mike Burch.......The Hebrew prophets certainly were prophetic. This was a country that had every resource and advantage to build a democratic republic that could have lasted centuries. The one thing lacking was a conscience. No country that believes that just because a race of people look like slaves and have a culture foreign to civilized european culture that enslavement can be justified for ANY reason.

This is not only a terrible injustice to the Africans but will ultimately be a terrible injustice to the country itself. Every year we inch closer and closer to the crevace of a genetic and culture debacle.

By: yogiman on 2/23/13 at 8:29


Since I didn't live in the US during the decades of slavery, I wasn't aquainted with any slaves or slave owner.

I did live in the south for several decades of segregation. That is when I "heard" there had been white slaves as well as black slaves... and there was black slave owners as well as white slave owners. Were the slaves separated because of their race? I don't know. I never heard it one way or the other. But I did hear there had been black slaves owners who owned white slaves.

I also heard most of the white slaves became slaves because of their debts. Were they simply working our their debt? I don't know, I never heard it that way. And I agree, there was fewer white slaves then black slaves. Could it be because they were more expensive?

But it boils down to the fact, Mike, a slave is a slave, regardless of their race.

By: yogiman on 2/23/13 at 8:33

s/h/b "then" black slaves.

By: yogiman on 2/23/13 at 8:37

Darn, I hit the wrong button again. It s/h/b "than" black slaves.

Hit the post button too quick. Sorry for my error, y'all. I'll try to catch up with y'all in absolute accuracy if I can.

By: Ask01 on 2/24/13 at 8:40

Mike, a serious query.

I'm not sure how we arrived at this point, so deep in theological history but, since I believe you are better versed in the subject than anyone here, let me ask a few questions if I may. Perhaps you can clear up some misconceptions, or confirm some information, not just for myself, but others.

As I understand, the three major religions, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all trace their lineage back to a primary character, Abraham.

All are essentially monotheistic. (I don't feel up to arguing the Trinity concept right now.)

"Allah" is merely the Arabic word for God, much the same as in English we say "God," German speakers use "Gott," "Dios" in Spanish, "Dieu" in French, or "Бог" in Russian. (That's pronounced Boch, sounds similar to Loch.) That said, when Muslims speak of Allah, they are merely saying "God," the same God, if they derive from the same patriach as Jews and Christians. That would make the three faiths cousins at least, if not actual siblings, would it not?

Much to the chagrin of many modern Southern Christians, Jesus Christ was a practicing Jew, who observed most of the rites of the faith. Since he first preached his message to the Jews, would that not make Christianity, at the very least, a breakaway Jewish Sect?

These are just some bits of information I have acquired and some thoughts developed over the years and I would appreciate your thoughts.

Have a wonderful Sunday.

By: yogiman on 2/24/13 at 9:12

If I may, Ask01, may I remind you there is many variations of the Christian faith; like Presbyterian, Baptist, Methodist; etc. And none, to my knowledge, says if a person doesn't belong you their faith they should be killed.

So when did God tell the believers of the Muslins of the Islam faith they should kill anyone who isn't a Muslim?

By: yogiman on 2/24/13 at 10:40

Got a minute, Ask01? Go to www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxh1PvjP0ug/

What did Michelle Obama mean when she said they went through Africa to visit his home country of Kenya?

Was that a comment in error?

By: ancienthighway on 2/24/13 at 2:53

Life must be good with blinders on, yogiman.

Every religion has it's fringes that cling to one line verses taken out of context and building their life around it. You really should be familiar with that context before you go basing your misguided beliefs on fringe behavior.

Take the Southern Baptists, for instance. The aspect of God worshiped is a vengeful, domineering god that desires to enslave all non-believers. One that doesn't recognize women as people but as property. One that willingly punishes non-believers with death. The name of Jesus is used freely, yet His teachings are mostly ignored.

Yet another religion worships the aspect that loves and forgives. One that sees all of His creations as equal. One that welcomes non-believers willing to learn and believe. The name of Jesus is used freely and His teachings are a model for each to strive for.

Of course you with your blinders and limited ability to comprehend won't see or understand what I just said, so I'll apologize now for tossing a bunch of meaningless words at you.

P.S. The Obamas know about you and your life in the conspiracy clouds. If Mrs. Obama said that it was just to yank your chain! The link you provide, just like so many other of your links of "proof" is bad. Nothing their. Just like your theories.

By: yogiman on 2/24/13 at 3:13

It isn't my theories, ancienthighway, it's facts.

And I'll repeat: Anyone who accepts, and supports, someone as their president who they can't identify, who they have no idea who he is, and who refuses to identify himself are in for a sad awakening... sooner than you will wish.

Many of you have claimed "your man" is a natural born citizen but none of you have offered proof.

If interested, look up the law of what a natural born citizen is. Go to 'Third Congress, session II, Cu. 21. 1795' page 415 and read Sec. 3.

Also read the first section of page 104 in 'First Congress. Sess. II. Ca. 4. 1790'.

What did they mean?

By: yogiman on 2/24/13 at 4:56


Let me help you see a little behind the clouds. First, I'll say if you're a sound Obama fan you won't be interested. You're in the communist party with him. But if you think this damned old fool 'don't know what he's talking about', what do you think of all the crimes your man Barry has pulled? And tell me why he won't identify himself?

Why do you have to prove your identity for buying a pack of cigarette... or even a damn quart of beer, yet this man doesn't even have to prove his identity to hold the office of the President of the USA. Strange laws, aren't they?


By: yogiman on 2/24/13 at 7:45

I just read an interesting article, Mike. Since it was about slavery I thought you might like it.

As I noted before, I had heard of white slaves and black slave owners, but I never heard of a black man being the 'instigator'.

By: ancienthighway on 2/24/13 at 9:08

So during the last two presidential elections, the choices were between a rich Republican, who is all about supporting one class of people...the corporation...or a Democrat. Neither prospect looked good.

Everything the Republican would do would have a result of furthering the gulf between the haves and the have nots. This includes redirecting social programs that benefit everyone into corporate welfare.

Everything the Democrat would do would would expand the amount of spending on social programs and government, and then raising taxes on everyone to support the new spending.

Neither side had a plan to tackle the top two problems this nation is facing, the deficit, and unemployment.

The advantage to having a Democrat in office is the Republican House would block any unjustified spending increases. The disadvantage is that same House will block anything the President proposes to try to improve the state of this nation.

Unfortunately, having a Republican President and the Democratic Senate don't counter balance each other. Those Democrats are just as rich and invested in Corporate America as the Republicans are.

So, did I support Obama in the last two elections? Only after he was selected the party's candidate, and only because I saw him as the lessor of two evils.

By: Loner on 2/25/13 at 6:42

Mike, thanks for shout out....I knew that you would find this seldom-mentioned "slave patrol" aspect of the 2nd amendment to be interesting and revealing. Great piece of writing, Mike.

The flawed amendment lead to the Great Secession and the War Between the States....it should have been abolished when the Southern states vacated their congressional seats. Nobody at the time seemed to recognize this deadly nexus.

Now that the rebel states are back in the union of American states, abolishing the 2nd amendment is functionally impossible. Like a genetic defect, we must learn to live with this debilitating handicap.

By: yogiman on 2/25/13 at 6:54

You might like that article about a black man being the father of slavery, Loner.

And ancienthighway, I hate to 'say' this, but to vote for someone to be president of this nation who refuses to prove their eligibility for that position is poor thinking.

Haven't you wondered why so many communist dictators have given him their support?

By: gdiafante on 2/25/13 at 7:44

I'm not sure I buy the 2nd amendment was about controlling slaves. Was that a part of it? Sure, but the memory of British oppression was far more on the minds of people than any slave insurrection.

In fact, many of the people in the Constitutional Convention believed that what became the Bill of Rights wasn't needed. It was only during the ratifying conventions that this became an issue. Hardly a conspiracy.

They did what they had to do in order to maintain the union. I would venture to guess (and that's all it is) that if the founders had found some way to banish slavery, the second amendment would have been untouched.

By: Loner on 2/25/13 at 7:54

Gd....the 2nd amendment was created to give constitutional sanction to the slave patrols performed by the large Southern state militia....Mike Burch did not make this stuff up.

Here is the article that inspired Mike's missive:


The NRA and their ilk claim that the 2nd amendment was put in place to preserve our freedoms; the truth is, it was a demand by the Southern slave states; its purpose was to create a police state that would keep the African Negro slaves terrified and compliant. That was the real reason, obscured by the "good" reasons.

By: Loner on 2/25/13 at 8:05

I think that it is helpful to remember that the rights mentioned in the Bill of Rights were all afterthoughts and not all of the proposed amendments were ratified...there were originally 12 amendments in the proposed Bill of Rights. None of these "rights" were considered germane by the original Founders....there is nothing sacrosanct about these items; all of the enumerated rights have been modified or limited by common sense and reason...IMO, the 2nd amendment needs to be clarified and modified to conform with modernity...or be abolished entirely....it has been nothing but trouble.

By: gdiafante on 2/25/13 at 8:25

Like I said, I don't buy it Loner. The Founders were well aware of the English Bill of Rights that dated back to 1689 which gave the people the right to bear arms. Individual states, like Pennsylvania as early as 1776, had that very right in their constitution.

I stand by my assertion that they were more worried about the federal government than slaves.

By: Rasputin72 on 2/25/13 at 8:48

LONER like the rest of us perceives what he wants to perceive in order to promote his view of world and human disorder.

Diversity creates a myriad of issues and of course even more opinions.

By: foxman on 2/25/13 at 1:13

Mike, If gas price "skyrocketed" when Bush invaded Iraq then what is the cause of it being at an all time high for this date now that Hussein is running the show????

By: yogiman on 2/25/13 at 1:52

That's different. Hussein can do no wrong. Just ask congress.

By: gdiafante on 2/25/13 at 2:04

To the two idiots: waging war in an already unstable region doesn't stablize prices. And using the President's middle name only makes your bigotry that much more apparent.

God I'm sick of these dumbass knuckle-draggers...

By: govskeptic on 2/25/13 at 2:07

Loner: I'm afraid that large postal pension has warped your mind on what the
amendments meant, and their reasoning for being brought forth. Some
liberal blog or publication has you way off base on the 2nd argument.

By: Loner on 2/25/13 at 3:26

The Southern revisionists have their hackles up today...they "don't buy it".

According to Southern revisionist history, the "slave patrols", performed by the Southern state militias, are just a damned Yankee fabrication...the Southern Founders, men like George Mason, James Madison and Patrick Henry, were a bunch of misunderstood and maligned humanitarians.

And there's more: the Secession and Civil War were fought over taxation policies, not slavery....the rebellious and well-armed Southern state militia and the Second Amendment are totally unrelated items....according to the revisionist's narrative.....the South is thereby absolved of guilt and the North is portrayed as the evil and wicked aggressor.

It appears that the Southern school systems may have twisted the facts, to suit the myth....many in the South remain defiant and unrepentant 'til this very day.. 618,000 combatants died in the war and much of the South is still in denial..what a terrible waste of humanity.....very sad, indeed.

By: Loner on 2/25/13 at 3:54

Gd wrote: "The Founders were well aware of the English Bill of Rights that dated back to 1689 which gave the people the right to bear arms. Individual states, like Pennsylvania as early as 1776, had that very right in their constitution."

Well, I Googled it. The 1689 document, the so-called English Bill of Rights, states the following: "That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law; "

The right to keep and bear arms was not meant for all the king's subjects...just those in power. The Catholics, or "papists", were not included in the covenant.

Same goes for the American colonies and the American states...white men were presumed to have this exclusive right; Native Americans and African Negro slaves were functionally excluded from this particular right.

By: Loner on 2/25/13 at 4:04

Yeah, Gov, my "large postal pension" has put me in the tycoon class...handmaidens, butler, chauffeur, Rolls Royce....accountants on my staff...vacation homes...yes, I am a jet-setting playboy, staying at 5-star hotels....dining in world-class restaurants.....So, keep mailing those cards & letters, my friend, to keep us retired mailmen in the lifestyles that we have grown accustomed to.

By: ancienthighway on 2/25/13 at 4:15

The 2nd Amendment has its roots in six areas:

enabling the people to organize a militia system.
participating in law enforcement;
deterring tyrannical government;
repelling invasion;
suppressing insurrection, allegedly including slave revolts;
facilitating a natural right of self-defense;

As much as some people would like to believe, deterring tyranny or enabling slavery are not the only reasons for the 2nd Amendment.
The 2nd Amendment authorizes the state's National Guard, something the federal government would have encouraged as it requires a smaller standing military.

All of the above reasons are still valid reasons for keeping the 2nd Amendment. Yes, even the clause about slave revolts even though their are no slave states. Yet the NRA and gun owners seem to hone in on the right of self-defense and claim the government is trying to repeal that right and thus the 2nd. No one person nor organization has the authority to unilaterally make that change.

By: Loner on 2/25/13 at 5:24

Ancient, "deterring tyrannical government" is another way of claiming that the 2nd amendment was put in place to justify secession and armed rebellion..that is pure BS...more Southern revisionist clap-trap.

You also make the counter claim, that "suppressing insurrection" was the intent of the Founders....which one is it? You can't have it both ways.

We now have full-time, professional police departments at all levels of government to enforce our laws, we do not need or want civilian militia enforcing the laws, do we?

Today, we also have a full-time standing US Army, US Navy, US Marine Corps, US Coast Guard and US Air Force, to suppress insurrection and to repel any invaders, so the notion that the 2nd amendment is still needed for those reasons is more BS....again, this sounds like End Times, Christian, "Prepper" Militia BS.

And yes, the main reason for the 2nd amendment, to legitimize Southern slave patrol militia, is thoroughly obsolete and was never legit to begin with.

The 2nd amendment led to the Great Secession and the Civil War and it is now being used as cover for the fear-based civilian gun market.

The 2nd amendment is here to stay...sadly, we need to learn to live with the debilitating, destructive and deadly "right".

By: yogiman on 2/25/13 at 5:50

You apparently didn't read that article I posted at 7:45 yesterday, Loner.

It was an article explaining where a Black man started slavery. It was quite a bit different on the history I read as a child.

It explained how slavery got started. I always thought it was started when slaves were brought over from Africa and sold.

By: yogiman on 2/25/13 at 5:54


You're talking about 1689. Darn, man, it's 2013 now. There's been quite a few changes in this country since then.

I like the ones of today much better.