Absolutely correct - anyone who grew up in the Deep South grew up with the dregs of the militia mentality and slave revolt fear - why do you think back in the 1930's and 40's and 50's there were so many old geezers in white suits and string ties who called themselves "Colonel"?
Dregs of the old militia systems. And anyone who thinks that unbridled ownership of assault weapons is any defense against the firepower of the federal government is living in a dream. Only the people who are afraid the guv'ment is gonna become totalitarian are the ones who keep that dream alive - and we already have a totalitarian government, but it has become so through lies and corruption and crooked politicians rather than at the end of a gun. It is interesting that those who fear the government taking over with weapons only think it will happen if the Democrats take over. ________________________________ From: Bill Coop <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 3:27 AM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Letter I just sent to the editor of the local paper http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2008/03/whitewashing-second-amendment Whitewashing the Second Amendment As the Supreme Court reviews a historic gun-rights case, lost is the Second Amendment's controversial history—when it wasn't a bulwark against tyranny but a way of enforcing it. —By Stephanie Mencimer | Wed Mar. 19, 2008 11:00 PM PDT Last week at an American Constitution Society briefing on the Heller case, NAACP Legal Defense Fund president John Payton explained the ugly history behind the gun lobby's favorite amendment. "That the Second Amendment was the last bulwark against the tyranny of the federal government is false," he said. Instead, the "well-regulated militias" cited in the Constitution almost certainly referred to state militias that were used to suppress slave insurrections. Payton explained that the founders added the Second Amendment in part to reassure southern states, such as Virginia, that the federal government wouldn’t use its new power to disarm state militias as a backdoor way of abolishing slavery. This is pretty well-documented history, thanks to the work of Roger Williams School of Law professor Carl T. Bogus. In a 1998 law-review article based on a close analysis of James Madison’s original writings, Bogus explained the South’s obsession with militias during the ratification fights over the Constitution. “The militia remained the principal means of protecting the social order and preserving white control over an enormous black population,” Bogus writes. “Anything that might weaken this system presented the gravest of threats.” He goes on to document how anti-Federalists Patrick Henry and George Mason used the fear of slave rebellions as a way of drumming up opposition to the Constitution and how Madison eventually deployed the promise of the Second Amendment to placate Virginians and win their support for ratification. On 1/29/13, Rick Archer <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks. I notified the paper to amend my letter as follows: > > > > “In other words, our fledgling nation, with no professional military, needed > its citizenry to be able to mobilize quickly to repel another British > invasion, Indian uprising, slave rebellion, etc.” > > > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] > On Behalf Of Michael Jackson > Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 1:43 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Letter I just sent to the editor of the local > paper > > > > > > One of the other things that is ignored from history is the fact that in > some states like South Carolina, prior to and after the Revolutionary War, > the population of blacks outnumbered whites by two or three to one. > > In SC, the militia was begun by white planters from Barbados who were > creating homes and plantations here like they had in Barbados - and as in > SC, the slaves in Barbados outnumbered the whites - thus the Barbadians > created their militia in the advent of slave revolts (there were three I > think) > > When the influx of white planters came to South Carolina, they decreed the > systems of law and commerce that served them in Barbados had to be > instituted in SC, including the militia system. South Carolina was not the > only place where militias were mandated by the white powers that made the > decisions and they were created for fear of slave revolt. > > > > > > _____ > > From: Rick Archer <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > > To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 2:22 PM > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Letter I just sent to the editor of the local > paper > > > > > > "The 2nd Amendment is not about hunting. It's about defending ourselves > against governmental tyranny." > > > > Thus read a placard at a recent pro-gun rally. For many who invoke the > second amendment, this is the implication. The black, socialist, Muslim, > foreign-born president with the funny name is going to take away all our > guns like Hitler, Stalin, and Mao did so he can impose a tyrannical > dictatorship. There was no massacre at Sandy Hook. The government staged the > event as a pretense to enact stricter gun laws. Such are the paranoid > fantasies entertained by an alarmingly large percentage of those who > consider themselves psychologically qualified for unfettered gun ownership. > > > > In the media, the second amendment is usually truncated as "the right to > bear arms". The entire amendment reads: "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." In other words, our fledgling nation, > with no professional military, needed its citizenry to be able to mobilize > quickly to repel another British invasion, Indian uprising, etc. > > > > Today, the second amendment is an anachronism. Its purpose is fulfilled by > the U.S. Armed Forces. They are well-regulated. Those who regard the > official military and police as their probable opponents in a popular > uprising against "tyranny" insist on remaining totally unregulated. Although > they would be hopelessly outgunned, they fantasize that their military-style > weapons would enable them to conduct an effective guerrilla war. Dudes, this > isn't Syria. If you want to be heroic freedom fighters, go there, where > you'll stand a fighting chance and may actually do some good. > > > > Here's Ronald Reagan on the issue: "I do not believe in taking away the > right of the citizen for sporting, for hunting and so forth, or for home > defense. But I do believe that an AK-47, a machine gun, is not a sporting > weapon or needed for the defense of a home." - Feb 6, 1989 > > > > There is no constitutional, domestic, or sports-related justification for > the semi-automatics and high-capacity magazines involved in recent mass > shootings. The Founding Fathers did not foresee and would not have condoned > them. No hunter would use them. As we have seen all too often, their only > function is to kill lots of people easily and quickly. And that's what those > who so stridently defend their "right" to own them have in mind. > > > > > > ------------------------------------ To subscribe, send a message to: [email protected] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
