Well, you half way got me on that one. It didn't demand they be hunted down only that excaping did not make you free. Bad clause in the long run.

And Dude, the free states did not want to count the slaves at all, that is exactly what I said. Learn to read.

To attempt to make a case that the second amendment was all about protecting slavery is about as stupid a post as has ever appeared on this board. The only thing worse is the constant harping on the Jews by the ignorant aryan brotherhood members.

You have trivialized the entire constitution by making such a frivilous claim. You completely ignore why the American Revolution even occurred.

Yes slavery is evil, and yes its a good thing it was abolished but it was not created in the United States, it was not created as a racist institution it was an economic one and the Southern states economy was solely agricultural. This had nothing to do with state militias or 2nd amendment rights or any thing else. You are no better than Ward Churchill and his bullshit arguments.

Gawd, what assholes abound herein

__________________
Its better to have fussed and crabbed then never to have fussed at all - Lucy

LOL, you are touchy. Not too bright, but at least you have a lot of misguided passion.

BTW, you saying this is the worst post ever because you disgree with it says a lot about you

YOu are nothing more than another canuck or icy or lasher with stupidity like you are posting. You are another fool that accepts assine "research" from marginal scholars as gospel because you think it makes you appear smarter than everyone else. Well, bubba, let me clue you in. All this does it make you appear as foolish and ignorant as a savage from the stone age.

You are not worth debating.

__________________
Its better to have fussed and crabbed then never to have fussed at all - Lucy

__________________
USA OLYMPIC WORLD CHAMPIONS

Thanks for the laugh. This thread really needed it...

__________________
Hehetchetu. Wa uyun tinkte!

Hafta agree with you. Kudos to Will E Orwontee, and to you as well for such thoughtful posts.

__________________
Hehetchetu. Wa uyun tinkte!

Where did I argue that? I am just taking issue with the conclusion of the Bogus paper you claim to find "interesting." I'm not saying there were not some Southern Anti-Federalist provocateurs trying to incite fear; just that such concerns were of no significance to the other state legislatures.

Why would Bogus' theory be accepted as a recognized action of the 2nd Amendment in the states who ratified the Amendment that had already forbidden slavery?

While there was a compromise between the slave states and the rest of the Union to get the constitution ratified you are ignoring the abolitionist sentiment of the North. Those states swallowed the bitter pills of apportionment, servitude and the 20 year window . . . while banning slavery in their own jurisdictions because of its inherent evilness and the ideal that the fundamental principles of equal rights and inalienable liberty made slavery illegal and unconstitutional.

Again, to think that the 2nd Amendment, drafted with this claimed intent of protecting and perpetuating slavery was ratified by abolitionist state legislatures is quite unrealistic.

And there exposes your limited knowledge on the subject . . . As General Ulysses Grant said, "If I thought this war was to abolish slavery, I would resign my commission and offer my sword to the other side."

Move beyond your grade school history.

Holy smokes, now you are really getting things confused.

Dunmore's actions were done out of self preservation; the militia you speak of were not the Governor's militia, they were patriot militia motivated by fighting the crown, not by putting down a slave insurrection. Dunmore's actions of inciting and arming slaves drove Virginia slaveholders to turn from the crown in disgust.

And there was a sentiment among them that the powers of the federal government were sufficiently restrained by the simple structure of the Constitution. Again, didn't you read the actual Bogus paper? (footnote numbers and pagination removed)

"Though the Constitution did not do so expressly, it included a number of provisions directly related to slavery. Taken together, these provisions evidenced an agreement that neither Congress nor the Northern states would attempt to interfere with slavery in the South. Most believed this was sufficient. Charles Pinckney, one of South Carolina's delegates to the Constitutional Convention, went home and told the state house of representatives:

'We have a security that the general government can never emancipate them, for no such authority is granted and it is admitted, on all hands, that the general government has no powers but what are expressly granted by the Constitution, and that all rights not expressed were reserved by the several states.'"

THE HIDDEN HISTORY OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT, Carl T. Bogus, University of California at Davis Law Review 31 (1998)

Bogus admits the concerns of "most" delegates of the slave states in the federal convention were appeased but then proceeds to cherry pick statements from state ratification debates. In particular he picks those of Virginia where desperate anti-Federalists were trying to defeat the Virginia legislature's ratification by any means necessary. This is what he uses as the foundation of his theory on the federal 2nd Amendment, ratified years later by all the states.

Ohhh, yes . . . The historic great "Slavery Freak-Outs" of 1790 and 1802 and 1824 and 1847 and 1862. Great defining moments in our nation . . .

There are no "militia rights" in the 2nd Amendment. The entire scope and extent of militia powers are expressed in Article I, § 8 of the Constitution.

In all the cases where disputes on the actual control of the militia were decided by the Supreme Court, the 2nd Amendment was never inspected for illumination of any aspect of "state's rights" or militia powers nor has it ever been held to speak to any "state's rights" or militia powers nor has any state ever claimed the 2nd Amendment's supposed immunity from federal intrusion and preemption of "state's rights" or militia powers.

IN FACT:

During Reconstruction Congress ordered the militias of the southern states completely disbanded and they were . . . Not one state claimed the 2nd Amendment stood as a barrier to such Congressional authority.

Do you know why they were disbanded? Because those state militias were the instruments of enforcement of the Black Codes disarming newly minted citizens in violation of the 2nd Amendment.

It seems the protection of the right to arms of recently freed slaves was paramount above any "state's right" to form, maintain and direct the actions of its official militia . . .

Now that's interesting!

Why?

This theory was but one small bag of excrement flung on the wall ten years ago that didn't stick then and has since been ignored by everyone.

You will have a fruitless search for further information on this because as Mr Bogus said, it's all about "alternative paradigms" and conjuring new ways to think about the 2nd Amendment.

In other words, it's BS

The Second Amendment does not grant any rights. United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 553 (1875). Furthermore, there is nothing in the Second Amendment that would bar the regulation of the possession, transportation and sale of firearms. United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939).

The original intent of the framers of the Constitution in the adoption of the Second Amendment was to guarantee the right to bear arms to the states for purpose of the maintenance of state militias; it was not a grant to individuals. If the Second Amendment was ever a limitation, it was on the intrusion of the federal government on states’ rights at a time when there was no standing army or organized reserve, and had nothing to do with the private ownership and use of guns, the regulation of which, as made clear by the Supreme Court’s decision in Miller, under both state and federal law (viz. National Firearms Act of 1934) is not prohibited by the provisions of the Second Amendment.

That is absolutely correct and I am puzzled as to why you think that statement of fact supports your anti-individual right position in any way.

There was only one sliver of NFA-'34 under inspection in Miller and since no appearance was made on behalf of Miller and Layton the Court only heard the US Attorney's argument that the registration / tax requirement for the transfer of a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long was not a violation of the 2nd Amendment.

The Miller decision was not a endorsement of NFA-'34 in it's entirety and it did not hold what you claim.

There was never any "state's right" action in the 2nd Amendment. The theory is a legal mirage created in the lower federal court system in 1942; its only ambit of influence seems to be to defeat the claims of individual citizens of a 2nd Amendment injury in the courts of the USA.

This supposed immunity that the 2nd "guarantees the states" is a legal nullity in its claimed operation; SCOTUS has ruled for 188 years that such an immunity from federal preemption does not exist.

A proper reading of Miller is found in a 1st Circuit decision coming only 3-1/2 years after Miller, it is Cases v. U.S, 131 F.2d 916 (1st Cir. 1942).

A proper and honest reading of Miller was so frightening the Cases court had to dismiss it and ignore it. (paragraph breaks added)

"At any rate the rule of the Miller case, if intended to be comprehensive and complete would seem to be already outdated, in spite of the fact that it was formulated only three and a half years ago, because of the well known fact that in the so called 'Commando Units' some sort of military use seems to have been found for almost any modern lethal weapon.

In view of this, if the rule of the Miller case is general and complete, the result would follow that, under present day conditions, the federal government would be empowered only to regulate the possession or use of weapons such as a flintlock musket or a matchlock harquebus.

But to hold that the Second Amendment limits the federal government to regulations concerning only weapons which can be classed as antiques or curiosities,-- almost any other might bear some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia unit of the present day,-- is in effect to hold that the limitation of the Second Amendment is absolute.

Another objection to the rule of the Miller case as a full and general statement is that according to it Congress would be prevented by the Second Amendment from regulating the possession or use by private persons not present or prospective members of any military unit, of distinctly military arms, such as machine guns, trench mortars, anti-tank or anti-aircraft guns, even though under the circumstances surrounding such possession or use it would be inconceivable that a private person could have any legitimate reason for having such a weapon. It seems to us unlikely that the framers of the Amendment intended any such result"

Absolutely no aspect of any "state's right" is presented there; the restricted entity is Congress, the protected entity are "private persons not present or prospective members of any military unit and the protected property is the type of weapon that could be said to, "bear some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia unit of the present day."

WOW!

It is no wonder that the Cases court opined that Miller formulated no rule!

The reason this had to be done was that by then, it was a "well known fact" or as the Miller court said, "within judicial notice," that pretty much every single modern gun has military usefulness!

The shotgun that the Miller court said, "has no reasonable relationship, . . ." could now be argued to be an arm beyond the reach of the NFA '34 and nearly all guns would be protected and nearly all federal gun control laws would be struck down.

This is the true and proper explanation of what Miller means and a fine explanation also on the action and extent of the protection secured by the 2nd Amendment for the individual, private citizen and is private arms!

If you disagree please explain why . . .