Ammo For Sale

« « Business idea | Home | More gun porn » »

Heller from the point of view of the stupid

Stephanie Mencimer has a stupid bit at Mother Jones (but I repeat myself) on how the second amendment existed to, and I am not making this up, keep the slaves down:

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.

They cite the appropriately named Bogus, who we’ve had fun with before on this issue because his alleged research relies primarily on the discredited work of Bellisiles.

See, this is a bit silly because if you look at the actual history of gun control and not the made up version of the second amendment perpetuated here, the first gun control schemes came into being specifically to disarm freed slaves. And these two bits are interesting:

In an interview, Bogus says that polls consistently show that African Americans support gun control in much higher numbers than white people do, and probably for good reason: They’re usually the ones looking at the wrong end of the barrel. As the NAACP points out in its brief on Heller, in D.C. in 2004, there were 137 gun-homicide victims. All but two of them were black. If the Supreme Court invalidates the city’s handgun ban, any ensuing uptick in gun violence is likely to have a disproportionate impact on African Americans, particularly young men.

And who was on the, I guess, right end of the barrel? And this:

Back in 1988, the African American syndicated columnist shot an unarmed, 18-year-old white kid from Chevy Chase who’d gone for an unauthorized dip in Rowan’s swimming pool. Rowan, who shot the kid in the wrist as he tried to flee, claimed he’d feared for his life and was only defending himself. Nonetheless, the columnist was prosecuted for illegally possessing a handgun. The trial ended with a hung jury and Rowan escaped punishment (though the teenagers were sentenced to community service), but the incident fueled a tremendous amount of racial tension in the city that might have been avoided if Rowan had just, say, called the cops.

You mean, strict gun control advocate Carl Rowan? I mean, you could not possibly have picked a better example. Why are anti-gun activists so violent?

Via reader JKB who emails:

Seems, they contend citing the NAACP, that the 2nd Amendment was incorporated in the Bill of Rights to permit Southern slave owners to keep the slaves down. Oddly, to me that would support a desire for a self defense interpretation rather than banning guns as they ague. I suppose they missed the whole abolition of slavery and skip right over the history of gun control as a way to keep guns out of the hands of freed slaves. If it was as they contend a racist effort then what would be a better slap in the face to racists than to use the amendment to allow a black man to arm himself?

They also seem to miss that Pennsylvania and New Hampshire both put forth a right to bear arms right. If my history is remembered correctly, those weren’t states that supported slavery. In fact, I believe they actively worked against it.

7 Responses to “Heller from the point of view of the stupid”

  1. Hartley Says:

    Wow – the commenters appear to have handed her ass to her on that one! I read ’em for quite a while and didn’t find ANYBODY who would go along..:-)

  2. thirdpower Says:

    Sugarmann is peddling the same crap on Huffpo.

  3. Alcibiades McZombie Says:

    The US Army was deployed to the South in order stop slave uprisings in the pre-Civil War days (according to General Sherman at least). Clearly, the US Army was enshrined in the Constitution solely to enforce slavery.

  4. Windy Wilson Says:

    I suppose that the second amendment and the army were in the Constitution to keep slaves down, and when they didn’t work (Nat Turner, Abolition and the Civil War and all), political scum (but I repeat myself) had to come up with gun control laws.

  5. Joe Mama Says:

    Good God, they’re making this stuff up as they go.

  6. Brad Says:

    It’s importanat to remember that the only way the Mother Jones vile misinterpretation of the history of the Second Amendment makes sense is if you also accept the anti-gun misinterpretation of the purpose of the Second Amendment; that the Second Amendment as an anti-slave amendment only makes sense if you accept the Second Amendment only protects States Militias from the federal government, the ‘collective rights’ misinterpretation of the Second Amendment.

    I was hugely amused to read the D.C. rep argue before SCOTUS in favor of the ‘collective rights’ State Militia position! When Ginsburg tried to pin him down on exactly what the Second Amendment prevents the Federal Gov from doing, the D.C. rep happily drove right over the logic cliff. If you accepted his logic then the Feds would have no ability to prevent State Militias from being armed with nuclear weapons! Good grief.

  7. straightarrrow Says:

    I don’t know how to break this to y’all, but there are black people who profit from betraying and misinforming other black people. There are black people who hope the situation in black America never improves, because they make money on that misery. There are black people who do all they can to make damn sure that other black people do not avail themselves of any of the opportunities to improve their situation and thus ruin the lifestyle of the profiteers on their misery and self-inflicted disenfranchisement.

    Peddling hate and racism pays better than advising self reliance, self control, and ambition.