[long island leprechaun]

Originally Posted by gunnails

=================================================

The first I had ever heard of 2nd being spoke of for use of slave/Indian militias was last night when I saw a post about Danny Glover espousing these thoughts at Texas A&M sponsored event.
http://www.campusreform.org/blog/?ID=4582

My first thoughts mirrored Draconian Fist's reaction and I quickly dismissed the idea.

Then today I see LIL post a more in depth article on the same subject, and I thought maybe I should put on my "Objective Hat" and look into it, which I have. I thank LIL for posting the story as I found it to be educational.

Although I do not necessarily agree with the premise and the conclusion of the article.

This is what I have learned/concluded.

I think we can all agree that the slaves of the post Revolutionary War did not live in servitude of there master of there own free will for the most part. And I am aware that there were attempts to escape or revolt and these were counter with armed force. I had never given much thought as to what form that armed force took, I assumed it was made of posse"s and the white slave owners and free men. Which is what they were, they were known as Slave Militias. This I believe to be accurate

The article references Georgia law of the 1750's that required Plantation owners are there male white employees to serve in these Slave Militias and check monthly to quell revolt, capture slaves and to check that they were not acquiring arms or planing revolt. This I believe to be accurate.

It goes on to speak to how the original version of the 2nd was worded as below.

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person."

The southern states were not happy with this. They felt that this would give the Federal Govt. the ability to call up and more or less redeploy the southern militias somewhere where they would leave the southern states unable to defend them selves against a slave uprising, thus losing there property and way of life. The south was well aware the north as a whole did not support slavery. This was a legitimate fear of the southern states. I believe this to be accurate.

So under Southern pressure the 2nd was rewritten to read as below.

"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."

So it seems to me that it is indeed true that slavery influenced the 2nd amendment.

The changing of the wording to me in hindsight had little effect on slavery as we all know it was later abolished anyway. And the meaning of the right of the people to keep and bear arms seems the same even with the revision. And I continue to believe the meaning of the 2nd was to allow the people a mechanism to fight against tyranny, a way to defend themselves, and a way for the country as a whole to defend itself.

Trust me, it was news to me. But thank you for your level headed response. I felt the same way... seems far fetched, but let me at least check into it further. When somebody quotes the versions, there appears to be something to it. And indeed there was. But I also agree with you wholeheartedly that the establishment of the Second Amendment is quite a bit broader than the protection of slavery and it does indeed enumerate a right to keep and bear arms in the context of a well-regulated militia. I have said repeatedly that I believe that the idea of individual gun ownership was so fundamental in this period of history that the purpose of the Second Amendment was something more pressing... the fear of standing armies and hired mercenaries establishing a power base that could indeed become tyrannical and dangerous to the liberty of the state and country. The Second Amendment is actually enhancing the political purpose of bearing arms, not just conveying the individual right to them. I can only mention Eisenhower's famous speech questioning the virtues of the "military-industrial complex" to show how far we have come from the concerns of Jefferson and Madison. The original meaning of the Amendment has been frankly buried under the weight of a modern defense establishment that would be beyond all imagining for the founders.