"THE HIDDEN HISTORY OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT"

[rdharma]

I invite you to check this out!

"THE HIDDEN HISTORY OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT"

Abstract:

Professor Bogus argues that there is strong reason to believe that, in significant part, James Madison drafted the Second Amendment to assure his constituents in Virginia, and the South generally, that Congress could not use its newly-acquired powers to indirectly undermine the slave system by disarming the militia, on which the South relied for slave control. His argument is based on a multiplicity of the historical evidence, including debates between James Madison and George Mason and Patrick Henry at the Constitutional Ratifying Convention in Richmond, Virginia in June 1788; the record from the First Congress; and the antecedent of the American right to bear arms provision in the English Declaration of Rights of 1688.

http://www.saf.org/lawreviews/bogus2.htm

[Hoyt]

1. Sure makes more sense than "the militia is all of us" and similar BS advanced by gun culture.

[rdharma]

2. Thom Hartmann interview with Prof. Bogus........

[flamin lib]

3. Also, Article III section 3 defines treason as

taking up arms against the federal government which puts the "we need guns just like the government so we can protect ourselves against the tyranny of government" argument.

Don't need no stinkin' amendment, it's right there in the body of the Constitution.

[jimmy the one]

4. bogus is not bogus

Question I have is that this site you cited is SAF, or second amendment foundation, a progun very progun gobble of gunnuts; but nowhere did I see any saf rebuttal just the book excerpts (or totality?) which is a great read, bashing gunnuttess joyce lee malcolm as well, for her incorrect reading of the british declaration of rights (aka bor) in 1689.
.. did the gunnut crowd ever have fun with gun control advocate & professor Bogus last name, ha (his last name is actually Bogus - arg, no joke).

[rdharma]

5. It was nice of saf.org to provide "THE HIDDEN HISTORY OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT"

......... in its entirety. Why they did it? Beats the heck out of me. But it was very nice of them to provide a copy because I couldn't find by searching its original source (University of California at Davis Law Review).

They probably posted it to be "fair and balanced"........ You know, like Fox News.