Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Ninga

(8,272 posts)
25. Some quick thoughts from my daughter that may or may not speak to your question.
Wed Jan 16, 2013, 12:56 PM
Jan 2013

Our “Founding Fathers” had a pretty narrow definition of what constituted a “responsible citizen.” Remembering that when the Constitution went into effect, the only folks eligible to vote (i.e. participate in the governing process) were white, male land-owners. We’ve broadened that view quite a bit; however, as we ask ourselves what their intentions were when writing the elements of the Constitution, it is good to keep in mind just whom they were considering fit the mold. Can you imagine how they would have reacted to people outside their definition owning firearms?

2. The manufacture of firearms using interchangeable parts, and therefore making firearms that could be afforded by the “average citizen”, did not occur until 1845 (and was kicked into high gear by the Civil War). Research of wills in the era prior to the Civil War shows that when a firearm was owned it was a definitely listed as a key part of the estate (i.e. it was one of the more valuable items owned by the person making the will). The research also shows that very few wills included firearms—i.e. not a lot of people had them. Doesn’t support the concept that the Founding Fathers wrote the 2nd Amendment with the idea that every person was to be given the right to have personal firearms.

Am in the throws of research that the firearms used by these militias were owned by (in this case) plantation owners or the like and issued to the members of their militias when the militia was active—kind of like what happens with our National Guard today (they don’t get to take their assault weapons home with them either.

It has always been clear to me that the 2nd is the legalistic tool of racist bullies. nt onehandle Jan 2013 #1
It has always been clear as can be that revisionist history is heinous dog shit cali Jan 2013 #5
Complete revisionism pipoman Jan 2013 #2
Dr. Bogus..... NYC_SKP Jan 2013 #3
Revisionist history and stupid, but then I'm in the minority here cali Jan 2013 #4
Let us all know when... 99Forever Jan 2013 #10
wow. you mean if you don't have a peer reviewed dissertation any and all criticism cali Jan 2013 #12
No, I "mean" that... 99Forever Jan 2013 #14
SO you mean those doctoriaal thesis whistler162 Jan 2013 #18
Uhhhh... 99Forever Jan 2013 #19
Very good - I like it! GoneOffShore Jan 2013 #23
On loan from a likeminded friend... 99Forever Jan 2013 #35
nice proof there, i guess we are stupid unless we just take your word for it CreekDog Jan 2013 #24
I'd love to read you're dissertation on the subject. Deep13 Jan 2013 #28
My daughter, a PhD in American History, vetted this and determined that it is Ninga Jan 2013 #6
care to divulge a bit more detail? cali Jan 2013 #8
Of course. She read it, -and assured me it was fine to send out, but I will have to Ninga Jan 2013 #15
Some quick thoughts from my daughter that may or may not speak to your question. Ninga Jan 2013 #25
Too many problems with point 2. Guns were FREQUENTLY listed JimDandy Jan 2013 #31
Not necessarily revisionist. This scholar makes a pretty good case Still Sensible Jan 2013 #7
That is pure bullshit in my opinion. n/t MadrasT Jan 2013 #9
Mine too obamanut2012 Jan 2013 #13
No it wasn't. 1-Old-Man Jan 2013 #11
Ridiculous Demo_Chris Jan 2013 #16
This is the same publication which insisted that Karl Rove had been indicted: Freddie Stubbs Jan 2013 #17
Not a fair comparison. The issue with the Rove indictment was the fault of the particular journalist stevenleser Jan 2013 #21
Truthout actually gave a promotion to Leopold Freddie Stubbs Jan 2013 #32
Wrong. Impossible. 99Forever Jan 2013 #30
Truthout is an organization which has a history of having trouble with the truth Freddie Stubbs Jan 2013 #33
Thom Hartmann didn't use ... 99Forever Jan 2013 #34
Fail. Kingofalldems Jan 2013 #36
Makes sense - to an extent. Of course there were other roles for the State Militias, jmg257 Jan 2013 #20
This is unpersuasive, I'm afraid Spider Jerusalem Jan 2013 #22
And one of the key drivers of the anti-Federalist sentiment Still Sensible Jan 2013 #26
Come on now! It was to kill Indians, too. Deep13 Jan 2013 #27
That is part of it, but not as large as... nadinbrzezinski Jan 2013 #29
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The Second Amendment was ...»Reply #25