The media has given highly favorable coverage to a new book by Dr. Carol Anderson, chair of Emory University’s Black Studies Department, that argues that “[the Second Amendment] was designed and has consistently been constructed to keep African Americans powerless and vulnerable.” In interviews with media outlets like CNN and NPR Anderson’s theory is not challenged on the history and purpose of the Second Amendment. Like the contested claims of the “1619” project (which posited that slavery was the motivation for the establishment of the colonies), there might be a reluctance by academics to raise the countervailing historical sources out of fear of being labeled insensitive, defensive, or even racist. However, this is not a new theory and, while there were concerns at the time about slavery and uprisings, the roots of the Second Amendment can be traced largely to England and the fears of government oppression. The point is not to dismiss this consideration for some pro-slavery figures at the time but to put those statements in a more historically grounded and accurate context.
The book, “The Second: Race and Guns in a Fatally Unequal America,” is the latest work of Anderson who previously published “White Rage: The Unspoken Truth of Our Racial Divide.” NPR bills its interview as “Historian Carol Anderson Uncovers The Racist Roots Of The Second Amendment.”
In truth, this is not a new theory and was long preceded by more detailed accounts by figures like Carl Bogus who wrote the 1998 work The Hidden History of the Second Amendment. Carl T. Bogus, The Hidden History of the Second Amendment, 31 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 309 (1998); see also Carl T. Bogus, Race, Riots, and Guns, 66 S. CAL. L. REV. 1365 (1993). These works are worth reading as are the writings of my colleague Robert Cottrol (and my former colleague) Ray Diamond. See Robert J. Cottrol & Raymond T. Diamond, The Second Amendment: Toward an Afro-Americanist Reconsideration, 80 GEO. L.J. 309 (1991).
Bogus highlighted the quotes used later by Anderson, including a warning by Patrick Henry that the Constitution gave too much power to the federal government in the “common defense” and did not leave enough powers with the states to defend themselves. Bogus asked “What was Henry driving at? In 1788, Americans did not fear foreign invasion. Nor did Americans still harbor the illusion that the militia could effectively contest trained military forces.” His answer was slavery and its preservation.
Slavery was a matter discussed both at the Declaration of Independence and during the Constitutional debates. There were those who were concerned about efforts to abolish slavery as well as slave uprisings. However, the Second Amendment does not appear the result in whole or in large part due to those fears. The right to bear arms was viewed as a bulwark against oppression of citizens by the government. In Northern states where slavery was not as popular, the Second Amendment was an important guarantee against that danger of tyranny. For example, the Pennsylvania Constitution (that preceded the Constitution) included these provisions:
That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to and be governed by the civil power.
The inhabitants of the several states shall have liberty to fowl and hunt in seasonable times, on the lands they hold, and on all other lands in the United States not enclosed, and in like manner to fish in all navigable waters, and others not private property, without being restrained therein by any laws to be passed by the legislature of the United States.
New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island and other states had similar precursors to the Second Amendment. The Framers had just overthrown a tyrant and the image of the militia and the famed “Minutemen” remained fixed in the minds of many at the time.
James Madison captured this purpose in in Federalist No. 46 when he noted that a small federal standing army would be opposed by “a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands” which would be able to defeat a tyrannical standing army. He was highlighting “the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation”
Likewise, important contemporary writers at the time connected the Second Amendment to values heavily steeped in the shared history from England. There were also strong cultural and practical value placed on gun ownership, a right that was limited in England. This was still a young country where many lives along the frontier and relied on guns to sustain themselves and their families in terms of both security and sustenance. There was also a deep-seated mistrust of both a standing army and a centralized government.
That is evident in St. George Tucker’s American edition of Blackstone’s Commentaries (1803). In his publication of Blackstone, Tucker added two footnotes that reflected the thinking of many Framers:
[fn40] The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Amendments to C. U. S. Art. 4, and this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government.
[fn41] Whoever examines the forest, and game laws in the British code, will readily perceive that the right of keeping arms is effectually taken away from the people of England. The commentator himself informs us, Vol. II, p. 412, “that the prevention of popular insurrections and resistence to government by disarming the bulk of the people, is a reason oftener meant than avowed by the makers of the forest and game laws.”
Tucker later explained this point further:
“This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty . . . . The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game: a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes. True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorise the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty.”
There are a myriad of historical sources expounding on this rationale for the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court has itself highlighted that rationale in its discussions of the history and purpose of the Amendment.
The Anderson book effectively repeats the arguments of Bogus but she offers a far more fluid and casual treatment of the history, as is evident in a recent interview:
“…George Mason. Patrick Henry and George Mason really teamed up like tag team taking on the Federalists and the Constitution. What they argued, was that the Constitution put control of the militia under federal control. That meant that Virginia would be left defenseless, as they saw it, when there is an uprising. When there is a slave uprising, that they could not count on the North. They could not count on the federal government and those in Congress to deploy the militia to help out in the midst of a slave revolt.
And they were like, ‘you know, the North detests slavery and we will be left defenseless. I mean, can we really count on those folk?’ and Madison is arguing, ‘look, you got the Atlantic slave trade. Look, you got the three fifths clause. Look, you got the fugitive slave clause, you’re protected.’ And Patrick Henry’s like, ‘No, we are not.’ And so you started seeing the momentum for a new constitutional convention. And that was the last thing James Madison wanted, because he’s like, ‘if these folks get another bite at this, we’re gonna end up with the Articles of Confederation again’.”
…
This is the payoff to Patrick Henry and to George Mason. Look, the militia is here. And what it does is it says that the feds cannot interfere with the militia. You are safe to have your militia to defend against slave uprisings. So sitting here in the Bill of Rights, we have an amendment that is about denying Black people their rights.”
That is not, in my view, an accurate account of what was said by some of these figures and, more importantly, what was the primary motivation for the Second Amendment.
While I disagree with the analysis and conclusion, I value the discussion of how slavery may have impacted this and other amendments. Slave revolts were a concern in the South and that fear no doubt reinforced the desire to have a guaranteed right to bear arms, particularly for slave holders like Patrick Henry. I simply disagree with the sweeping generalizations and conclusions reached in the book. Moreover, this is not a new theory as suggested in these media accounts. Indeed, the case was made stronger by academics like Bogus and the general subject is presented with far greater depth and understanding by academics like Cottrol and Diamond.
When you have to edit a statement to make it false – that is pretty much proof the statement was not false to begin with.
Someone else’s remarks are true or false as they wrote them – not as you changed them. Not based on what YOU think they imply.
““Slavery was immoral.”
True but irrelevant to this particular exchange.”
Of course it is relevant.
So the implication is that without the 2nd amendment, blacks wouldn’t be suppressed? No blacks do a great job of suppressing themselves, they don’t need guns to do it, they just blame everyone else for their own shortcomings…although they don’t seem to have a problem shooting one another. Is the “suppressive” 2nd amendment the reason why blacks, only 13% of the population, commit over 55% of all violent crime? Sounds to me like we need to 2nd amendment more than ever, we’ve got a corrupted and tyrannical government and an percentage of the population that thinks the rest owe them something.
And the same tyrannical government is fanning the flames of that percentage that we do owe them and encouraging them to act out.
There is neither need nor point in speculating about the 2nd Amendment. Both in their words and their deeds our founders expressed EXACTLY why they added the 2nd Amendment to the Bill of Rights.
But if the second ammendment is to keep blacks down , why is it that they are getting firearms and committing most of the gun crime ?
The authors of the 14th amendment explicitly intended to extend 2A rights to BLACK former slaves as a necesicty for defending themselves.
I think this would be a wonderful opportunity to pause for a moment and give thanks for the many great contributions of the Black community and their culture to our society. Their peaceful and generous nature makes them ideal neighbors, lending testimony to their exceptional family values and parenting skills unrivaled by any other culture.Their commitment to academic excellence enriches our schools and serves as an example to all who hope to achieve prominence as a people. Real Estate values are fueled by the influx of African Americans into an area due to their caring and respectful nurturing of these communities, an example of all they have achieved by their enthusiasm for self-improvement through hard work and a self-reliant can-do nature.Without their industrious and creative drive, we would be poorer as a nation.
Now that’s sarcasm!
Just a swarm of poor, disadvantaged black folk helping themselves to $100,000 in Louis Vuitton bags so they can feed their starving kids. https://www.foxnews.com/us/california-thieves-swarm-louis-vuitton-store-steal-more-than-100000-in-handbags-police-say
California imposes a bag limit of several hundred, or a thousand dollars per person per event… or was it lifetime. They may be in violation of the law.
Woke and [morally] broke.
The Second amendment was written and placed at number two to insure the citizens of America always had the tools of freedom available to protect themselves from a government gone rogue, as is currently the case.
I take it that you are ready, willing, and able to attack the Federal government? Just waiting for the inevitable?
Attack is not the same as defense is it, therefore your comment is kind of duh…
Excuse me. How do you intend to “defend” yourself when the Federal Marshalls come knocking on your door?
How about a mob of Antifa and BLM breaking down your doors while the police are told by their leftist leaders to stand down.
I do not.
I expect that they will increasingly refuse to obey unconstitutional and lawless orders.
I would remind you that Pelosi ordered the capital locked down.
Yet, the evidence is clear that many on the Capital Police allowed – even welcomed protesters.
Democrats – even the military brass were concerned that when they brought in the national guard to defend the capital – they may well have brought the very people who sought to “attack” it.
Ho look at the infamous tianamen video of the man standing up to the tank.
or study the collapse of the Berlin wall.
You are betting that law enforcement and the military will protect you from the people.
That is an increasingly bad bet.
We will not have a coup in the US.
But if you expect the the military or law enforcement to open fire on american citizens protesting the lawless actions of government – your taking a huge gamble.
Congress and the left ARE terrified by Jan 6. Because we were not very far from protestors FORCING an audit of the election.
Something they SHOULD have done.
At the time – a plurality of people beleived the election was stolen – and many still do. And a majority beleived there were very serious problems.
The people are entitled to lawful and trustworthy elections.
We did not get them.
Unlike investigations of Trump – which are subject to 4th amendment obstacles that you have never met.
Investigations of government are NOT. Government has no “rights” – there is no right to government privacy.
We are entitled to know almost anything we wish to about how government does its job – including how it conducts elections.
It does not matter.
If this keeps up – there will be “attacks” – though there is an open question as to whether federal forces will take up arms against protestors.
The current effort to “educate” those in government, the military, the police – to indoctrinate them that limited govenrment is equivalent to domestic terrorism, is an attempt to assure that the forces that the left counts on to protect them – will do so – after the left has spent years demonizing them.
Jeff, I would suggest reading the declaration of independence – the whole thing.
Regardless, No one wants a second revolution – but that is where YOU are dragging us.
When you impose your will on others by force – you can expect them to react – possibly with violence.
I would also suggest some history – try the fall of the USSR, the collapse of east berlin.
Sometimes revolutions are violent – but not always.
Government collapses when the people lose faith in government.
That can be violent. It can be very dangerous. But it also can be relatively peaceful.
You talk about “attacking the federal government”.
As if there will be some force to defend it.
Do you think you have the support of the police ?
The national guard ?
The military ?
The left is behaving so stupid and so dangerously.
Look arround you – you have burned your own credibility.
The Biden presidency is a failure – even Biden’s support among democrats has tanked, and support for congress is much worse.
You are losing on all fronts concurrently.
CRT is highly unpopular – even among democrats.
You claim Biden won the election – if so it was because people wanted to end the bitterness – but that has not happened.
Biden has doubled down on Woke nonsense – and it is predictably failing.
Everywhere – the left is failing.
Do you really think “defund the police” is popular – even with minorities ?
Regardless, everywhere we turn – the left FAILS – and lies.
A woke media allows some limited ability to hide that failure – from yourselves – not from everyone.
But not forever.
Lightfoot’s Chicago: 32 shot Friday thru Sunday. Not a word out of Benjamin Crump. Black lives don’t really matter.
Some, Select [Black] Lives Matter is a nominally “secular” Pro-Choice religious doctrine. Nay, imperative for social progress, social justice, minority consolidation (e.g. redistributive change) of capital and control, etc.
“Some, Select [Black] Lives Matter is a nominally “secular” Pro-Choice religious doctrine. Nay, imperative for social progress, social justice, minority consolidation (e.g. redistributive change) of capital and control, etc.”
First, BLM and the left generally are a religious moment – religions are distinguished by unfalsifiable beleifs.
Gender, sex, race, identity – are what you claim to be – not based on biology – that is FAITH – religion.
Pro-Choice – and Pro-Life are RELIGIOUS positions. Neither has any interest in using objective criteria to determine what is a human life.
Progress is a function of individual liberty and free exchange – “social progress” is religious.
Justice is individual. “Social justice” is more religion.
Redistribution is again – Religious. Despite evidence tot he contrary it remains left dogma that capital was accumulated by exploitation and that redistribution will correct some purported wrong.
It will not. Humans are not equal. No matter ho level you make the playing field – at the end there will be big winners and big losers and myriads of levels in between. That is a NATURAL consequence of our NATURAL inequality.
Life is not fair – get over it.
Beleiving you can change that – is both stupid and religion.
Even beleiving it is a problem that should be changed – is religious nonsense.
It is our inequality that is the root of our success. It is specifically because we are not equal.
Denying that fundimental natural inequality is religious nonsense.
Young…..exactly right. If they’re trying to convince us that blacks matter, I would hate to see how they treat people whose lives don’t matter. ha!
Cindy “I would hate to see how they treat people whose lives don’t matter. ha!”
***
Well on that I have to say they often treat them equally– they beat, rob and kill them.
Yes……and you have to wonder where and when this madness will stop. Bob Woodson and his 1776 group are trying their best but it seems futile.
They and we are up against a more than complicit media, who actually have acted as architects designing the course of direction for what’s left of our country. But they are being directed by global demons, who are in the process of destroying us. The Democrats are just their stooges, imo. that’s why the fabricated “race crisis” is a sick diversion.
We have a generation that has been taught nonsense.
That has been taught emotions are facts, that they are inherent truths.
That there is such a thing as “my truth” that is different from “The truth.
Who beleive that everything is magical and that merely wishing something to work will make that happen.
Nothing that Biden or the left seeks to do is new. It has all been done before – and it failed.
As it is doing now.
We is stupid is repeating the same idiocy and expecting different results.
Minorities – particularly blacks do not matter to the left or democrats.
Otherwise why would they be so condescending and so committed to their subjugation.
None of us – not whites, not blacks, not anyone needs government to “save us”.
There is this claim from CRT that the west is inherently racist – not just individually and systemically, but the entirety of capitalism. law, enlightenment thought even math is racist.
Specific laws can be racist – but a legal system that is absent overt racism can not. Philosophy – absent overt racism can not.
CRT’s claim that western ideals and values are racist is an explicit claim of inferiority on the part of blacks and minorities.
The claim that math is racist – is logically inseparable from the conclusion that blacks can not do math.
The claim that free markets are racist – is the same as claiming blacks are not capable of succeeding.
The claim that western law – rather than specific laws is racist is the same as claiming that blacks are criminals.
“ In 1788, Americans did not fear foreign invasion.”
Whaaaaaat?
Jeff– “bad speech- what I would consider your speech.”
***
Not even my speech; government crime statistics by race.
True even if I never uttered a word.
But you do not have the mental or moral tools to face those facts. You have virtue signalling.
Young,
I don’t have to signal my virtue compared to yours. It’s altogether obvious. Although I will concede that you are a better speller if that is of any satisfaction to you.
Jeff: “will concede that you are a better speller if that is of any satisfaction to you.”
Yes, that too is satisfying.
“I don’t have to signal my virtue compared to yours. ”
Does anyone care ?
In fact why is it virtue to be good at something that brainless hunks of silicon can do far better than humans ?
Reardless as you noted – it is petty.
By your own measures you are petty.
I do not speak for Young – but I doubt he would have pointed out your problems but for your own pettyness.
I certainly would not have.
You have invited all your posts to be uber spell and grammar checked – that is all you have accomplished.
So now you have distracted posters over spelling.
There is should be an informal fallacy for spell and grammar checks – they function the same as all fallacies – to avoid the real debate.
To distract from the absence of an argument.
With the reemergence of the Pro-Choice religion and progress of diversity [dogma], not limited tor racism, sexism, ageism, and other class-based bigotry; inequity; and exclusion; black and white indentured servants, poor blacks and whites were denied standing in their communities, then denied the right to keep and bear arms. So, history threatens to repeat itself with a Democrat majority exercising liberal license, presumably under the Twilight Amendment that legalized selective, opportunistic denial of human and civil rights for social progress leverage, and profit.
Cindy Bragg:
“Does anyone remember what there was to talk about before black Democrats forced every discussion on God’s green earth to be about blacks??
Honestly, they have become the most self-centered group of people……and undeserving of the sickening 24/7 attention.”
You remind me of those Germans who refuse to forgive the Jews for the Holocaust and complain about those Jews who won’t shut up already.
Jeff…..LOL That’s laughable.
It does not surprise me in the least that you think it is laughable. I wouldn’t expect you to take such criticism seriously. It is too bad that Turley never weighs in on this blog to condemn such views so I wouldn’t have to. I suppose you would laugh at him too….
Yes, Jeff, it would remind you of something like that. What are you reminded of when blacks commit more than 54% of the murders in this country? What are you reminded of when black flash mobs loot businesses? What comes to mind when they destroy cities? Civilization? Likely not.
Young,
Let me get this straight- you are claiming that blacks destroy “CIVILIZATION?”
Do I have that right? Do you want to qualify that statement before I reply to you?
I asked what comes to YOUR mind when blacks murder at astounding rates, loot businesses, and burn neighborhoods. Is civilization what comes to YOUR mind?
You claimed to tell us what came to your mind reading Cindy’s comment [though I doubt it] so now tell us what comes to your mind when thinking about what blacks have been doing.
Hutu/Tutsi cycles of retributive and redistributive change. Post-“apartheid” Progressive South African blacks lynching blacks and whites. Precolonial days of African diversity, inequity, and exclusion, not limited to slavery, affirmative discrimination, and progressive class-based bigotry. #HateLovesAbortion
@n.n
You rattle off noise.
What is the point you’re trying to make within your run-on sentences.
You are taking multiple things and trying to make it one.
Hutu/Tutsi is one thing.
Zimbabwe is another.
South Africa is still yet a third.
You are too busy correcting the grammar of others to see the legitimate points they are making.
Multiple things often make a pattern.
Over the past 50 years China has gone from the bottom of the third world to the bottom of the first.
India has nearly matched that.
South america’s rise in standard of living would be dramatic – except that it is dwarfed by India and China.
Throughout the world over the past 50 years – as socialism has died and as much of the world has embraced the value of individual liberty –
the standard of living in even the poorest places on earth has more than doubled.
Except Africa. The West has poured $1T in aide into africa in the past 50 years – with no impact at all.
The largest continent in the world, with incredible natural resources has seen the smallest improvement in the world.
This can not be blamed on colonialism or the west – South America was subject to the worst spanish colonialism for hundreds of years.
British colonialism in India was for twice as long and far more pervasive,
With a few exceptions Africa alone has failed to keep up with the world in raising standards of living.
There are many “things” that explain unique failures in specific countries.
Regardless almost the whole of africa has failed.
Read the previous comment for context. That said, racist, sometimes continental, always color judgments, are deceptive practices that sustain diversity [dogma] (e.g. racism, sexism, ageism), inequity, and exclusion.
Young,
No, I will not regard blacks as uncivilized savages/animals. I don’t think like you or Cindy. And god help me if I ever do.
I didn’t ask what you didn’t think. I imagine that is a lot. I asked what you did think about black murders, looting, and destruction, and I will add attacks on other races and creating multiple fake hate crimes. Share what you think, not what you don’t think.
As for God helping you, I doubt you have appealed for help in that direction very often.
Young,
If white people were in the exact same societal predicament as blacks, you apparently believe that they would NOT commit “murders, looting, and destruction, and I will add attacks on other races and creating multiple fake hate crimes” as blacks wantonly do.
Turley would counsel that more speech is the sole solution for bad speech- what I would consider your speech. However, I’m sure there is absolutely nothing I could say to you and Cindy which would convince you to believe otherwise. Consequently, I am not as sanguine about more speech as a cure for hate speech as is Turley. Though I would love to hear what he would have to say to you about your attitude.
For my own part, I prefer to walk away from you and go our separate ways.
So you can’t answer or are afraid to confront the truth and give an honest answer.
I have known white people in more poverty and hardship than is typical of blacks today and they didn’t even need to lock their doors at night, so don’t throw that up as an evasion.
You are not particularly honest with yourself and so cannot be honest with others. You get by with mealy-mouthed virtue signalling.
Indeed, as you say, you want to walk away so do that.
Young,
You know my answer. If you suffer any discredit, you bring it upon yourself with your attitude toward blacks. I can’t help you; I can only pity you.
Jeff: “I can’t help you; I can only pity you”
***
Or instead of mealy-mouth diversions to avoid answering you can follow through on your proposal: walk, or slither, away.
Those on the left do not seek to honestly discuss any issue.
They have no interest in FACTs, Logic, reason.
Any debate with the left devolves quickly to fallacy particularly ad hominem.
Jeff would rather debate spelling than any actual issue.
Jeff is the perfect example of Nassim Taleeb’s IYI – Intelectual Yet Idiot.
The Racial nonsense going on today is NOT mostly driven by blacks.
They are the victims of idiotic whites like you.
The majority of Blacks understand how toxic your ideas are.
They want MORE police.
While they would prefer more community policing – they want MORE police – even if all they can get is white police officers from out of town jetting arround in patrol cars.
They do not want riots and arson and the destruction of their communities.
They want a decent education for their children.
Like all other parents they want their kids taught what they need to get ahead.
They want them taught Math – even if left wing idiots think it is racist.
They want their kids to be able to read.
“They are the victims of idiotic whites like you.
The majority of Blacks understand how toxic your ideas are.”
That is known as placing the blame where it belongs, right in Jeff’s hands.
Anon: “Jeff, Young is racist.”
***
This Anon slithers out every now and then with these accusations.
Anon, let’s see if you are a racist.
The average black IQ in the US is 85. T or F?
Blacks commit more than 54% of all murders. T or F?
Blacks have the highest illiteracy rate. T or F?
If you answer ‘T’ to all you are a racist.
If you answer ‘F’ to all you are a liar.
See how easy it is to be a racist ?
@Jeff Silberman,
What social predicament?
The urban culture is one that you see due to the progressive social reforms of the late 60’s and 70’s. Its the breakdown of the atomic family.
Black families w a strong atomic family and extended family support… tend to escape your ‘societal predicament’.
Lets look at the Asian communities of the same time. Vietnamese and Cambodian refugees all have fared better than the inner city black population.
They came here with nothing but the clothes on their backs.
You excuse criminal behavior and blame society. If you want to blame anyone blame the white liberals who created this mess. Maybe that’s your white guilt?
“what you did think about black murders, looting, and destruction”
Jeff is unable to deal with reality. Instead, he makes the issue into a racist issue because his ideology is more important to him than the black lives lost every day. Jeff will protest the death of a black criminal, but he is entirely silent when it comes to the lives of black youth who remain uneducated and die in the streets.
In my opinion, it is not blackness or poverty that causes the problems. We see Africans and islanders doing quite well in this country. Britain sees poor Caucasians in similar circumstances. What are the similarities that cause the British Caucasian and the Black American to be in equal positions?
I think it is the Jeffs of the world that are hidden racists? They act as if African Americans are their inferiors and can’t even get a voter ID card. When something good happens to poor blacks, like Charter Schools in NYC, the Jeffs of the world see to it that their growth is stifled.
My experience with black people has mostly been excellent. However, my experience with looters and those that destroy has been unacceptable, no matter the race. We should not confuse poverty with the inability to act civilized.
Jeff will walk away from the black community that needs his help unless Jeff is top dog or virtue signalling. The Jeffs of the world have done the same to every immigrant. When that immigrant becomes more successful than Jeff, that is the point in time he will become racist towards them, saying the immigrant became rich off of his dime.
Excellent post.
The worst problems Blacks face in this country is the “help” they get from whites on the left.
Back as far as the 70’s “liberal Lion” Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, was able to grasp and confront the evidence that the Great Society programs to “help” blacks were actually destroying their communities.
In the 90’s finally Republicans and Bill Clinton managed to put a serious dent in government “help” that trapped blacks and the poor in poverty and destroyed their prospects.
Today the left is surprised that dramatically expanded unemployment benefits are posing a huge drag on what should be a large natural recovery. Who would have thought it ?
Lots of people. It has been well known for decades that Unemployment compensation reduces employment.
Something like 90% of the unemployed do not get jobs until the last 2 weeks of their benefits.
Maybe in the 60’s it was possible to pretend these policies were good intentioned – even that is debatable.
Minimum wage policies were initially enacted with the purpose of making it harder for blacks to get jobs – and that worked – even today.
So I am not all that moved by the argument that those on the left have “good intentions”.
Regardless, even the Christ does not judge people based on intentions – but actual actions.
If there is retribution for the moral harms caused – those on the left are headed for hell.
No Ideology has come close to the carnage of the left.
No wonder the left wants to hide real history and teach racial gibberish.
The truth is damning.
Leftists have no response to reasoned argument. All they can do is yell and scream, along with being nasty.
Jeff, Anonymous, and other Liberals cannot and will not answer honest questions concerning the Black Community and governments role in destroying the ‘Black Family’. As Thomas Sowell mentions “…as recently as 1960, two-thirds of black children were still living in two-parent households….” After trillions of dollars spend (War on Poverty), today, liberals still can’t accept that government hand-outs don’t create wealth. Wealth is only created by individual effort. Liberals never discuss facts just assumptions or visions. Their only ‘raison d’être’ is to reduce questions of causation to only those which provide moral melodramas and an opportunity for Liberals to be on the side of angels. Thus, they never point out that the ever growing octopus of government interference in everyone’s life (labeled as help) is the greatest threat to any society. Historian Paul Johnson states it best – “…The study of history is a powerful antidote to contemporary arrogance. It is humbling to discover how many of our glib assumptions, which seem to us novel and plausible, have been tested before, not once but many times and in innumerable guises; and discovered to be, at great human cost, wholly false. ”
Jeff, Anonymous, and other Liberals cannot and will not answer honest questions …”
Hstad, you are so correct.
Amen & Awomen
Jeff- Young makes a good factual point. Seems so . . . The black communities don’t act very civilized.
Noxomus,
It is uncivil to accuse others of being uncivilized, and I won’t do it. Trumpists don’t appreciate being called “deplorables;” likewise, blacks don’t appreciate being regarded as “savages.”
The actual “savage” is the white leftist who creates an issue over color while pretending to help those in need. Jeff provides a lot of virtue signaling but no genuine concern for the black community. If Jeff had any concern, he would be aghast at the killings of young black youth in Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore and other large Democrat-run cities. Not a peep from Jeff.
He would also be concerned that white leftists prevent charter schools from expanding in NYC, especially since they do exceptionally well when compared to public schools. Not a peep from Jeff, who doesn’t care that the bad education from the left leads to gangs, criminals and an early death.
Listen to Jeff as he moans and groans about Turley not saying what Jeff wants even though Turley is on the left side of the aisle. That is Jeff insulting others but never looks inward to see the death and destruction he supports.
“It is uncivil to accuse others of being uncivilized, and I won’t do it.”
Yet, you do all the time.
“Trumpists don’t appreciate being called “deplorables;””
You really do not understand – many on the right wear the “deplorables” label proudly.
Calling someone deplorable – says more about YOU than them.
The left hates more than half the country.
“blacks don’t appreciate being regarded as “savages.””
Straw man.
Lie it or not we must confront reality to have any hope of dealing with it.
This is not about name calling – but it is about not running from reality.
Why are more murders committed by blacks than any other group ?
Why are their less by asians than any other group ?
Absent a magic ray gun or silver bullet to address that – we should police those communities with more crime more agressively and those with less, more mildly.
When you have proveable explanations for racial disparities in IQ or violence – I am listening and we can explore means to address problems based on that knowledge.
in the meantime – even those in black communities want MORE not less policing.
Yes, they should expect to be safe from the police. But even more so from the gangs and rapists, and muggers and robbers that prey on them.
This is not about attacking blacks.
But it is about confronting reality.
Many issues do not correlate to race.
Some do. Violence is one of those.
If we want to fix violence – it would be helpful to understand why that correlation exists.
I would further note that the black community as a whole is disconnected from much of this woke leftist nonsense.
Overwhelmingly blacks want MORE police – not less.
They even want MORE bad policing – if that is all they can get – not less.
Thwarting violence as a means to an end is one of, possibly THE core duty of government.
Jeff – you are free to talk about whatever you want. And I and everyone else is free to choose not to listen.
But there is a point. You cited the hollocaust – approximately 6M jews were murdered during the hollocaust. Most during about 18 months at the end of the war. This is what real genocide looks like.
The treatment of blacks in the US is not exceptional in the history of the world. Slavery exists right up to today. Legal slavery existed until the late 20th century in a few places.
The damning facts about slavery in the US and about American racism is not that it is in any way exceptional. But that it is is in direct conflict with the founding values of this country. The shining light of liberty for the entire world was not the first to end slavery. The most diverse country in the world – still has had a history of racism.
We all “get that”. But there are more antifa in portland today than KKK in the US. Racism still exists, but it is NOT in the top ten factors negatively impacting anyone.
But if the left continues to dwell on racism. If our public dialog must be 100% about 13% of the people – eventually you WILL create ever greater racism.
The education I received 50 years ago more than sufficiently covered the sins of our past – while still managing to directly address the fact that the US is the beacon of liberty for the world – or atleast it was until the left went ape$hit.
The left dominates government, dominates, education, dominates the media, and through that domination is constantly telling the entire country how evil we all are.
And you wonder why MAGA has such a strong appeal ? I did not vote for Trump – in either 2020 or 2016. But I would far rather listen to Trump talk about how great this country is that anyone on the left rant about what a he!!hole it is. Worse still – it is your own space that you have made into $hitholes.
Those of us warning you that accusing most of the country of being racist homophobic hateful, hating haters is a very stupid idea – might prove to be wrong.
But I would not bet on it.
I am very seriously concerned about the intolerant ranting of the left – not because this country is the evil place the left claims.
But because if you keep it up you could well make it into the evil place you claim it is.
As you know, I refuse to communicate with you, but I will on this occasion for your sake. Do yourself a favor and learn, ok? “Holocaust” is not spelled with 2 “l’s” and it is capitalized.
We know Jeff’s entire intellect is based on a spell check app and a thin book of leftist history appended with buzzwords. Jeff is unable to communicate with anyone that has the knowledge and skills he lacks. He is what is commonly known as a “phony”.
I have zero interest in grammar and spelling nazi’s.
Jeff could direct his intellect to issues rather than syntax.
Are you paying me to write ?
If Not, then I do not give a $hit about your spelling criticisms.
Yes, I know that you – like all posters here on the left refuse to engage on actual issues.
Because you can’t.
Instead when you respond it is always off point, fallacious.
Are you interested in actually addressing the FACT that as bad as the experience of blacks in the US was over the past 400 years,
it is not exceptional compared to that of other groups throughout history.
The hollocaust was extreme in comparison to what happened to Blacks – but it is not that unusual for Jews.
There have been numerous times in world history that millions of Jews have been killed.
During the cultural revolution – which most directly parallels the left’s current nonsense The CCP killed millions of its own people.
Are you paying me to [read]?
If Not, then I do not give a $hit about your [vomit of words].
You are not obligated to.
Has anyone ever demanded that you read what others post ?
Has someone put a gun to your head ?
Are elementary schools forcing my posts on grade school students ?
Read, Do not. Don;t care.
Do as you please – so long as you leave the rest of us the same freedom.
But you don’t. Whenever you gain power you use it to reduce the rights of others.
If your world – freedom is only for you.
Nasty again.
You deserve opprobrium.
But again you engage in mind reading.
If you are sufficiently emotionally fragile that you can not deal with criticism of your own idiotic fixations – that is YOUR problem.
I do not give a $hit about you spelling or gramatical critique.
I do not give a $hit about your fragile emotional state.
I do not give a $hit about what you think I think.
I do not give a $hit about what you think I feel.
Do you have a valid argument ? Or is your life entirely about slandering people – because you can not concoct an argument ?
@John Say…
The Holocaust started up from the beginning of the war when Germany invaded Poland.
Can you read ? I did not date the start of the hollocaust.
German persecution of Jews started before that.
Dachau was built by the Nazi’s in 1933.
In 1935 Jews were deprived of citizenship and rights.
Kristallnacht was in 1938 almost a year before the invasion of Poland.
The first mass murders took place in Poland in 1940.
Here is the best estimate of the rate of killing
https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/advances/5/1/eaau7292/F1.large.jpg
He was schooled but left uneducated.
They began their killing on Germans with birth defects before the war. Read “The Nazi Doctors”
“The damning facts about slavery in the US and about American racism is not that it is in any way exceptional. But that it is is in direct conflict with the founding values of this country. “
Excellent!
Thank you.
That one point is so Important I am going to repeat it.
“The damning facts about slavery in the US and about American racism is not that it is in any way exceptional. But that it is is in direct conflict with the founding values of this country. “
It is actually important not to whitewash our history.
It is important that we grasp BOTH that this country is founded on EXCEPTIONAL ideals, and that we repeatedly fail to live up to them.
We should be ashamed of many things we have done.
But we also MUST be proud of what we have accomplished because of those values.
Jeff:
If the Holocaust is on your mind, I assume you do not wish to repeat it. Are you concerned that the Democrat rhetoric is so firmly that white people are born bad, that they must apologize for their whiteness, and that a nuclear family, being on time, studying hard, and staying in school is demeaned as “whiteness”?
Democrat party rhetoric is clearly racist against whites. Adamantly so. Turley discusses with some regularity professors and journalists who have violent fantasies about harming all white people.
Meanwhile, Cindy complained about the hyper focus on race.
Now, which ideology is more likely to repeat the Holocaust, not caring about race, or deeming an entire race evil? Think really hard…
The left is literally seeking to cause the race wars that were part of KKK dogma decades ago.
I am honestly fearful that the will create the violent racism that they claim exists with whites.
If you call half the country racist over and over and over and over – you incentivise racism.
If I am going to be called a racist for point out the facts in the face of lies, why hold back ?
I am honestly shocked at the very small degree of counter violence in response to the rhetoric and actual violence of the left.
The last time we saw this – we ended up with Nixon as president.
Trump was the first pushback against this “hateful, hating, hater” nonsense.
The harder you push the pendulum one way the more forcefully it swings back the other.
Trump was a necescary regeression to the mean for the excesses of the Obama democratic left.
What happens when we do not regress to the mean ?
What happens when one side or the other gets the authoritarian tyrant they are pushing for.
Karen S: “Think really hard”
***
You are going to be disappointed if you demand too much of them.…
Karen,
You note that Turley “discusses with some regularity professors and journalists who have violent fantasies about harming all white people.”
And from that acknowledgement, you draw the conclusion that the “Democrat party rhetoric is clearly racist against whites?”
Please, Turley, can’t you see how your followers are misappropriating your articles to substantiate their abhorrent views? As a professor and teacher, don’t you have an ethical duty to denounce such erroneous interpretations?
If ever you submit yourself to taking questions from the public, I would pose this question to you.
+100
eb
This guy is not self-reliant. He is always asking Turley to fight his battles for him.
Please re-read your own post – it is clear as mud.
One must guess what you are claiming is Karen’s view and what you are claiming as yours.
If you are going to attack spelling and grammar – you should not write messes.
As to what I think you are arguing – there is ample evidence of democrats engaging in violent rhetoric – far more so than Trump.
And atleast some of that is racist targeting whites.
Frankly I do not much care.
Have whatever fantasies and dreams you wish – if you want, be stupid and talk about them publicly.
As a congressmen – threaten the supreme court – if the do not rule as you wish.
All this is free speech.
It is also stupid speech.
But I want nearly unlimited free speech. I want all the nutcases – whether on the left or the few KKK members still left to publicly expose themselves.
I want to know who I can trust and who I can not – by their own words.
Jonathan: Let’s face it. You have pretty much lost the debate over white privilege and the history of slavery and racism in this country. The murder of George Floyd, Black Lives Matter, Antifa, critical race theory have all eclipsed most white conservative academic thought these days. But white racist GOP politicians still cling to the fiction that slavery was a “necessary economic evil” and slaveholders were really just “reluctant” overseers of their slaves. Conservative academics, like yourself, are in a difficult position because, as you say, there is a “reluctance by academics to raise countervailing historical sources out of fear of being labeled insensitive, defensive, or even racist”. I understand. No one wants to be labeled a racist. You, apparently, are not so reluctant to enter the fray. So you declare the “The Second Amendment Was Not Primarily About Suppressing African Americans” and attack Dr. Carol Anderson, a black historian, in her latest book about the slavery component in the debate over the Second Amendment by the framers of the Constitution.
Now from many historical sources we know that James Madison, a slaveholder and author of the Second Amendment, had to reconcile Article 1, Section 8 of the proposed Constitution that gave Congress the power to provide for “organizing, arming and disciplining militias” with the demands of other slaveholders, like Virginia Governor Patrick Henry, who were afraid that Congress could undermine the ability of militias in Virginia and elsewhere in the South to suppress slave uprisings and pursue runaway slaves. Patrick Henry went so far as to oppose ratification of the Constitution unless a compromise was reached. Madison obliged with his one sentence that preserved the right of slaveholders to use their militias to suppress slave rebellions and capture runaway slaves. But you attempt to sanitize that history of the Second Amendment by saying it was “steeped in the shared history from England” not the realities of slavery in America. And you add that this “was still a country where many lives along the frontier and relied on guns to sustain themselves and their families in terms of both security and sustenance”. Sure, for you the Second Amendment was really purposed on giving frontiersmen the right to defend themselves and their families from what were termed “savage Indians”. This romanticized version ignores the fact that farmers and ranchers were eager to conquer new lands and used their guns to slaughter the native inhabitants that stood in the way. So the real history of the Second Amendment, a compromise that benefited slave owners, is quite different. That’s the history that kids in public schools have a right to learn about–not the fictionalized version you still cling to in a desperate attempt to keep them and us from learning the truth.
@Denise,
George Floyd was not murdered unless you want to try and convict his drug dealer.
First you have to account for the fatal levels of fentanyl in his system.
According to the autopsy, Floyd had 11ng/mL in his blood which is a near fatal dose which is 13ng/mL* when the blood is drawn from an unspecified location. Add in the comorbidity of a 75% arterial blockage… that’s enough to send him over…
At trial, the prosecution pushed that Chauvin was the stressor that sent Floyd into cardiac arrest. They ignored the initial stressor of Floyd fighting not to be placed in the back of their squad SUV claiming to be claustrophobic yet he was taken out of a smaller SUV when placed under arrest.
The point is that if Chauvin had stopped and let him sit upright… he would have still died.
The fact that Chauvin didn’t stop and do anything even while Floyd was crying out shows depraved indifference. Not Murder, but maybe Manslaughter at best.
Look at Eric Gardner in NYC. The much smaller officer reached across his throat while trying to gain a grip to take him down. Here they tried to claim that he choked Gardner out and that lead to his death. Yet the autopsy found contributing health factors and the officer was never charged. Gardner was resisting arrest. Had he not… he would have still been alive at least another 6 months or so.
One thing for certain, Floyd was never going to live beyond that day.
His murder was plausible, the modern standard of jurisprudence or social justice, not the probable causes which included drug overdose, comorbidities, and criminally-induced stress. A known progressive medical event that preceded his restraint. Also, an attentive mob that blocked ready access by medical personnel was a likely contributor to a progressive state of viability. There was no evidence presented that diversity (e.g. racism) was a motive.
That said, another handmade tale.
“But white racist GOP politicians still cling to the fiction that slavery was a “necessary economic evil” and slaveholders were really just “reluctant” overseers of their slaves. “
Slavery existed long before Columbus discovered the Americas. The slave owners were Democrats. The racists in the south and KKK were Democrats. The Republicans predominantly passed civil rights laws. I’m not too fond of either party, but I hope you would get the facts right when you state your opinion.
And before the conception of “white privilege”, there was a conception of “Jew privilege” by people with an “=” ideological bent.
That said, indentured servitude of whites and blacks. White and black slavers. White and black abolitionists. Mixed diversity Posterity conceived in the majority by black men and white women. Unfortunately, diversity [dogma], not limited to racism, is a progressive condition under a Pro-Choice nominally “secular” religion that denies individual dignity, individual conscience, intrinsic value, and normalizes color blocs (e.g. the racist designation “people of color”), color quotas, and affirmative discrimination.
Turley is correct, Madison hit the nail on the head with Federalist 46. The 2nd Amendment is about empowering the citizenry to oppose a tyrannical government. The Fathers found this so important the 2nd Amendment is the only one to explicitly state “shall not be infringed.” Stephen Halbrook in his book “The Founders’s Second Amendment” is a deep historical dive into its origins and is highly recommended.
Slave revolts were a concern and the racist response was gun CONTROL, not gun rights. But all this is a red herring propagated by the likes of Dr Hannah-Jones
The reality is that black leadership in abandoning traditional moral (and conservative) values has brought most of the current misery upon themselves. In 2020, blacks accounted for half the murder arrests as well as half the murder victims – 86% of which was at the hands of other blacks, all the while with blacks representing just 13% of the population. There is a black on black genocide going on and no black activist or Congressperson wants to touch it. (FBI UCR Homicide Table 43)
The lower income black community has a 70% single parent birth rate (CDC Vital Statistics), 60% grow up with no father in the home (Census), and many live in Democrat run inner cities where no black student reaches grade level educational proficiency (Baltimore).
Yet we wonder why blacks don’t have the level of participation in the American Dream that other ethnic groups have. The REAL question is; “What motivates black activists, Congressperson’s and civil rights “leaders” to ignore this problem for decades? There only two things that come to mind for me: a) If they address the problem and this demographic becomes self sustainable without government intervention, those politicians will lose their political base. b) If they agree and address the problem successfully, its a de facto admission that conservatives were right all along and four decades of Democrat policies are failures in this regard (and they are).
If there is systematic racism, its in the failure to address these underlying social pathologies plaguing the black community.
“The 2nd Amendment is about empowering the citizenry to oppose a tyrannical government.”
Not if those citizens were slaves.
The left has fixated on the militia clause in the 2nd amendment – Turley touchs on this – but there is a great deal more on the 2nd amendment at the time of the founding.
The 2nd amendment was deliberately constructed such as to mean different things to northerners than southerners.
In the north – it was read as an individual right to weapons – including weapons of war.
In the south – it was read much as the left wants to read it today – as a collective right, not an individual right.
In the south firearms were kept in armories. The great fear of southerners was that in a slave revolt, slaves would obtain firearms.
So the south opposed an individual right to bear arms.
But the history of the right to bear arms in the US is NOT limited to the 2nd amendment.
The real driving force behind Heller and other gun rights decisions was not the 2nd amendment – but the 14th.
One of the specific intentions of reconstruction republicans in the 14th amendment priviledges and immunities clause was to guarantee newly freed slave the individual right to firearms.
This claim that the history of gun rights in the US is racist – is anti-historical.
But then the left constantly gets history wrong.
What is new.
+100
eb
Brian………great comment!
@Brian,
In Chicago, there’s a priest, Father Fleguer ?sp?. While he’s a bit of a nut job, he has organized marches and protests concerning the gang violence and black on black crimes.
Now nothing has changed, but he’s done more for the black community in Chicago, than BLM has. BLM has in fact made things worse by promoting riots.
https://www.facebook.com/mlnangalama
According to the above blogger, a black Canadian woman blogger Re. Africa politics: black Africans long for a new Western “Colonialism” to save them from their black dictators.
I have no idea what black african’s want.
Colonialism was NOT a good idea. The US MOSTLY avoided colonialism.
But post-colonial history in africa has been absolutely horrible.
Some forget that correlation is not causation.
Allan steps in to announce his head is wedged up his butt.
Do you have an argument ?
Anonymous the Stupid, your comments keep getting deleted so I didn’t respond to several of your comments from the other day. They were too Stupid and too repetitive. You provide no content. Here again you choose to demonstrate your stupidity when you weren’t involved. What was wrong with my comment, “Some forget that correlation is not causation’?
It’s the most cliche of worthless platitude. It says absolutely nothing because you don’t define your terms. It’s lazy and inaccurate.
Anonymous the Stupid, this was the content: “Some forget that correlation is not causation’?”
Your responses tell us how you got your name.
First, Carol Anderson is black and she’s steeped in the myths of “African-American history.” The woman has an agenda. Second, Dr. Turley is telling the real reason for the Second Amendment, to allow an armed population with the means to resist a tyrannical government.
Semcgowanjr,
Turley has a JD, not a PhD so he should not be addressed as “Dr.”
While part of the motivation for the 2nd Amendment in the late 1700’s may have been to arm the population to resist a tyrannical federal government, how would that play out in today’s world?
Does anyone think that the Oath Keepers or the Proud Boys or the Michigan Militia or any other Right wing militia will be able to overthrow a tyrannical federal government? Does anyone believe that a Southern state can succeed the Union nowadays?
It seems as ludicrous to justify the right to bear arms as a means to arm an insurrection against the government as it would be to justify it in order to arm frontiersman against Native American attacks! There is no more chance of an Indian attack in this day and age than a successful insurrection against a government armed with tanks. Like it or not, those days are long gone.
Jeff………..In Texas, an attorney who teaches may use the title of “Dr.” An attorney who practices law may not.
You’re welcome. And before I forget, Happy Pride Month.
Yes, a month to celebrate lions, lionesses, and their [unPlanned] cubs. Next, month, we will celebrate seals and pups who survive growing and hungry polar bear populations.
Cindy,
You’re a class act.
Yes, she is.
Young….Oh, goodness! if I have half of your class I’ll be happy. You are one of the most well-read men I’ve ever well, read!
@Jeff Silberan,
How would it play out today?
Pray you never find out.
First the civilians are restricted due to the National Firearms Act which limits civilian access to select fire or automatic weapons. And that’s small arms.
Then there are those in the military which may decide to not follow orders which would make things worse.
Or you could see something like in Egypt where the military has held several coups only to allow free elections and to step back into the shadows.
That said, I suggest you look at Heller and McDonald. There’s more on the docket. I’ll wager that the next issue will be conceal carry permits. The courts will rule that ‘may issue’ needs to be ‘shall issue’ because the use of ‘may issue’ has been abused and a way to remove the rights of citizens to protect themselves.
(BTW, that’s your analogy to the ‘frontiersman’ argument.
“Then there are those in the military which may decide to not follow orders which would make things worse.”
**
That happened during the French Revolution and is probably why the leftists in power are putting and indoctrinating the military now.
Purging, not putting. Autocorrect
“Pray you never find out.”
Bravely spoken by someone who is too chicken to put his name to his veiled threat.
I don’t pray. I think.
I would suggest more praying.
Because once you have already made the poor choices that will only end badly – it is only prayer that can save you.
Jeff: “Does anyone believe that a Southern state can succeed the Union nowadays”
**
I wouldn’t bother with this but John has pointed out that you divert by resorting to style and spell check and you often do. Makes you look petty.
I think what you were trying to say was ‘secede’ rather than succeed’? Yes?
Young,
For your information, I have NEVER corrected anyone’s misspelling in the past. I am forgiving of typos and auto-correct mistakes. As a rule, I agree that it is petty to point out such mistakes. But in the case of Say’s misspelling “Holocaust,” it was not a fluke; he misspelled it repeatedly. You would think that he would welcome the correction just as I did when you corrected me. I appreciate your taking the time to correct me- that’s how I learn unlike some who don’t.
“For your information, I have NEVER corrected anyone’s misspelling in the past. I am forgiving of typos and auto-correct mistakes. As a rule, I agree that it is petty to point out such mistakes.”
You are correct – it is petty – and you are petty.
“But in the case of Say’s misspelling “Holocaust,” it was not a fluke; he misspelled it repeatedly.”
How is that relevant – if as you sahy you are forgiving of typos – as if anyone needs your forgiveness and you think that pointing them out is petty – then why are your principles suddenly meaningless when it comes to JBSay ?
“You would think that he would welcome the correction just as I did when you corrected me.”
Why would you think that ? People have posted spelling corrections of myself and others many times in the past – I do not recall there ever being welcome. As you say – they are petty. They have nothing to do with whatever the subject is.
They are a deliberate effort to derail any argument – they are a form of fallacy.
If someone cares about spelling in the context of turley’s blog – they will get their spelling correct.
“I appreciate your taking the time to correct me- that’s how I learn unlike some who don’t.”
No one is actually correcting your spelling.
They are correcting your hypocracy.
As YOU said – it is petty. That should have been the end of it.
Yet, you continue this – over and over. Getting ever pettier.
I do not think anyone took any interest in pointing out your spelling mistakes – until you made an issue of the spelling of others.
If there is an issue with spelling of grammar that causes you actual confusion – please ask for clarification.
In fact if anything about a post causes you HONEST confusion – it is far wiser to ask that to attack.
I make no excuse for my spelling here, nor grammar, nor typos. I DO NOT CARE.
I am not writing for an employer, I am not writing for history, I am not writing for money.
It should be self evident that if I actually cared these minor issues would not exist.
That is part of why you are correct that typo correction is petty – I do not care – and you have admitted you do not care.
If you do not care – then why do it ?
As you say – it is petty.
Trying to determine what the civil war settled is complex.
It is arguable that it established that a state can not leave the union without the permission of other states.
But there are innumerable issues of states rights that the civil war did not address.
The fundimental issue the civil war did address was slavery.
After the Civil war we passed the reconstruction amendments.
Presumably these are the victor’s establishing for perpetuity the meaning of their victory.
To the extent the reconstruction amendments changed anything – they strongly asserted the primacy of individual rights.
As a practical matter – the reconstruction amendments are redundant – there is nothing in them that was not already in the constitution.
All they are is a strong assertion that “We really mean it” – that government can not infringe on the priviledges and immunities of citizens.
That the constitutional constraints on government intrusion on individual liberty apply to the states as well as the federal government.
I quote in part from Federalist No. 26. The idea that the Second Amendment was enacted for control of slaves is truly laughable, Barnum & Bailey must have farmed out their Clowns!—————
As often as the question comes forward, the public attention will be roused and attracted to the subject, by the party in opposition; and if the majority should be really disposed to exceed the proper limits, the community will be warned of the danger, and will have an opportunity of taking measures to guard against it. Independent of parties in the national legislature itself, as often as the period of discussion arrived, the State legislatures, who will always be not only vigilant but suspicious and jealous guardians of the rights of the citizens against encroachments from the federal government, will constantly have their attention awake to the conduct of the national rulers, and will be ready enough, if any thing improper appears, to sound the alarm to the people, and not only to be the VOICE, but, if necessary, the ARM of their discontent.
Schemes to subvert the liberties of a great community REQUIRE TIME to mature them for execution. An army, so large as seriously to menace those liberties, could only be formed by progressive augmentations; which would suppose, not merely a temporary combination between the legislature and executive, but a continued conspiracy for a series of time. Is it probable that such a combination would exist at all? Is it probable that it would be persevered in, and transmitted along through all the successive variations in a representative body, which biennial elections would naturally produce in both houses? Is it presumable, that every man, the instant he took his seat in the national Senate or House of Representatives, would commence a traitor to his constituents and to his country? Can it be supposed that there would not be found one man, discerning enough to detect so atrocious a conspiracy, or bold or honest enough to apprise his constituents of their danger? If such presumptions can fairly be made, there ought at once to be an end of all delegated authority. The people should resolve to recall all the powers they have heretofore parted with out of their own hands, and to divide themselves into as many States as there are counties, in order that they may be able to manage their own concerns in person.
If such suppositions could even be reasonably made, still the concealment of the design, for any duration, would be impracticable. It would be announced, by the very circumstance of augmenting the army to so great an extent in time of profound peace. What colorable reason could be assigned, in a country so situated, for such vast augmentations of the military force? It is impossible that the people could be long deceived; and the destruction of the project, and of the projectors, would quickly follow the discovery.
It has been said that the provision which limits the appropriation of money for the support of an army to the period of two years would be unavailing, because the Executive, when once possessed of a force large enough to awe the people into submission, would find resources in that very force sufficient to enable him to dispense with supplies from the acts of the legislature. But the question again recurs, upon what pretense could he be put in possession of a force of that magnitude in time of peace? If we suppose it to have been created in consequence of some domestic insurrection or foreign war, then it becomes a case not within the principles of the objection; for this is levelled against the power of keeping up troops in time of peace. Few persons will be so visionary as seriously to contend that military forces ought not to be raised to quell a rebellion or resist an invasion; and if the defense of the community under such circumstances should make it necessary to have an army so numerous as to hazard its liberty, this is one of those calamaties for which there is neither preventative nor cure. It cannot be provided against by any possible form of government; it might even result from a simple league offensive and defensive, if it should ever be necessary for the confederates or allies to form an army for common defense.
But it is an evil infinitely less likely to attend us in a united than in a disunited state; nay, it may be safely asserted that it is an evil altogether unlikely to attend us in the latter situation. It is not easy to conceive a possibility that dangers so formidable can assail the whole Union, as to demand a force considerable enough to place our liberties in the least jeopardy, especially if we take into our view the aid to be derived from the militia, which ought always to be counted upon as a valuable and powerful auxiliary. But in a state of disunion (as has been fully shown in another place), the contrary of this supposition would become not only probable, but almost unavoidable.
You quote from the Federalist 26.
We read the verbatim manifest tenor of the actual 2nd Amendment which holds dominion.
______________________________________________________________________
2nd Amendment
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.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
That seems clear to me.
No one, no court, no judge, no Justice need comment.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Period.
2020 and 2021 saw some of the most gun sales in history.
Many of them were first time buyers and minorities and women. Seeing violence in major metro areas increase and the defund the police movement was their primary reasons to purchase a firearm; For their personal protection.
Good for them I say. Get proper training and welcome to the gun owners of America club. Glad to have you!
But MSM is doing their best to try to equate gun sales with the increased violence. As if these law abiding citizens are the ones committing crime and shootings in those cities.
The majority of the firearm related crimes committed in those cities are 1) committed with a handgun, 2) by criminals/gang members who do not follow or obey the law in the first place.
Not law abiding citizens.
@Upstate Farmer,
I admit I don’t watch much MSM these days. Too much fake news.
From what I’ve seen, the higher sales by minorities and women show that they are purchasing to protect themselves. (Unless they are straw purchasers)
And yes, there is a correlation to the increase in violence along w a distrust of our federal government.
I haven’t seen any of the MSM trying to claim that its the rise of gun sales that leads to violence rather than the rise in violence is leading to gun sales.
I am not sure that the relationship between gun purchases and rising violence is all that strong.
Gun purchases have risen every time democrats have threatened gun control.
Regardless, the are more guns in the US today than people.
There is no shortage of guns. New purchases have no measurable impact on our ability to use guns to kill each other.
Until very recently violence was in a 40 year downward trend. While the number of Guns in the country was significantly increasing.
When Obama commissioned the CDC to gather statistics – they found a negative correlation between guns and violent crimes.
John “I am not sure that the relationship between gun purchases and rising violence is all that strong.”
***
I don’t think so either. However, there appears to be a strong direct correlation between releasing violent criminals back into our communities and rising violence, including violence using a gun.
It could be that criminals are the problem rather than objects.
Sometimes guns can be used to solve the problem. A few weeks ago a criminal went into a convenience store with several customers to commit a robbery. He was shot by ALL the customers. Problem solved. No more robberies by that guy.
“However, there appears to be a strong direct correlation between releasing violent criminals back into our communities and rising violence, including violence using a gun.”
I do not beleive there is much evidence of that either. But I would be happy to look for data.
Until very recently there has been a pronounced trend towards declining violence.
There are Many competitors for the cause of that decline.
The only thing that appears to NOW be clear is that the agressive policing of our cities – the broken windows policing Worked.
That is what has ended last summer. that is the only consequential change that could correlate to violence.
In most of the world – and in the US prior to June lockdowns REDUCED criminal violence.
“It could be that criminals are the problem rather than objects.”
That has always been true.
But we do have problems with recidivism. Many convicts NEVER commit another crime.
There is a very strong correlation between age and criminality.
If we could identify those that will not reoffend – we could release lots of people.
Lest we forget in the 19th and early 20th century – criminal sentences were far shorter than today – and times were far more violent.
But most criminals did not reoffend.
But prison psychiatrists are actually WORSE statistically than ordinary people at figuring out who will reoffend.
Even Robert Hare – the renowned expert on sociopaths – the mostly likely to reoffend, noted that HE was constantly fooled by them.
Most sociopaths are not criminals and most are little more than pains in the ass that most of us have to deal with.
But once a sociopath commits a crime – they will NEVER stop.
That is different from most other criminals.
Of course sociopaths make 1/3 of our prison population.
“Sometimes guns can be used to solve the problem”
Obama’s CDC found that guns likely reduced crime by a factor of 10.
Everything must be about the racism because it sells more books. Michael Brown’s father is not concerned with BLM leaders skimming off the $90,000,000 they collected, he’s just crying a river over his sons death to get his share of the booty. https://news.yahoo.com/michael-browns-father-ferguson-activists-175846410.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAKv1jqM6rngc_P1jj2v3trmP14KAfmcHMlVw8n1Xxf6fSyQeqflR3vz4AiEx-SA1eg7g-lJkGQeDw_kk6GIPIfRs0Q5vbtj9M3D_sR2dbI3fANQ85s6kjLSXjMfvduUo5YHFZfXVL-wBeJHLsvzE0ur37I2cl3UBhYg2TLxcihks. If the problems of the black community are solved how will the race baiters get their doubloons. As long as the common rubes think they’re still in the bottom of a ship their pirate ransoms will be assured. They don’t really give a damn if their so called victims ever see the light of day because the result would be that their cache would soon disappear. Hoist the Jolly Roger.
THE INMATES HAVE TAKEN OVER THE ASYLUM
Americans have allowed the illegal alien inmates to engage in “…fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”
Witch doctor is sista Carol Anderson? Exactly how lucrative are “black studies” and why would anyone but a terrorist group teach that ineffectual, incoherent balderdash? Wasn’t “education” established so that Americans could develop the imperative capacity for self-reliance and the capability to “pursue happiness?” Africa seems like an appropriate place for African studies.
I’ll bet Egypt is ecstatic that the Israelite slaves were out of Egypt before the ink was dry on their release papers. Egypt hasn’t suffered for millennia, and doesn’t suffer now, a caterwauling, ineffectual and dependent minority which is relentlessly begging for “free stuff,” in all its multitudinous forms, including compulsory free social acceptance, free money, free food, free housing, free matriculation, free grade inflation, free hiring, free mortgage assistance, free healthcare insurance, free immunity from culpability, etc. The communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs) in America have made Karl Marx proud. No freedom and self-reliance for them; simply class “untouchability,” dependence and entitlement.
I hear Liberia * is nice this time of year and there are multitudes of idle cruise ships awaiting deployment.
__________________________________________________________________________________
“[the Second Amendment] was designed and has consistently been constructed to keep African Americans powerless and vulnerable.”
– Sista Carol Anderson
__________________
This irrational idiocy is what we got for our money: $25+ trillion in welfare redistribution since 1965 – the War on Poverty which poverty won. Can’t these dependents and parasites take care of themselves now – economically and socially? Can we do away with wholly unconstitutional affirmative action matriculation, affirmative action employment, quotas, welfare, food stamps, rent control, social services, forced busing, minimum wage, utility subsidies, WIC, SNAP, TANF, HAMP, HARP, TARP, HUD, HHS, Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Labor, Energy, Obamacare, Social Security, Social Security Disability, Social Security Supplemental Income, Medicare, Medicaid, “Fair Housing” laws, “Non-Discrimination” laws, etc., yet?
Funfact: The Founders required citizens to be “…free white person(s)…” and turnout in 1788 was 11.6%, while the requirements to vote were male, European, age 21 and 50 lbs. Sterling/50 acres. Since inception in Greece, democracy was conducted under a severely restricted vote. Never in history has democracy even considered unrestricted, one man, one vote status. Ben Franklin gave Americans a republic, distinctly not one man, one vote democrazy.
The 2nd Amendment was provided to Americans in order that they might recover their country from dictators and tyrants who had nullified and voided the American thesis, Freedom and Self-Reliance, its Constitution and Bill of Rights.
________________________
“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
– Declaration of Independence
________________________
* Earlier Resettlement Plans
The view that America’s apparently intractable racial problem should be solved by removing Blacks from this country and resettling them elsewhere — “colonization” or “repatriation” — was not a new one. As early as 1714 a New Jersey man proposed sending Blacks to Africa. In 1777 a Virginia legislature committee, headed by future President Thomas Jefferson (himself a major slave owner), proposed a plan of gradual emancipation and resettlement of the state’s slaves. In 1815, an enterprising free Black from Massachusetts named Paul Cuffe transported, at his own expense, 38 free blacks to West Africa. His undertaking showed that at least some free Blacks were eager to resettle in a country of their own, and suggested what might be possible with public and even government support.7
In December 1816, a group of distinguished Americans met in Washington, DC, to establish an organization to promote the cause of Black resettlement. The “American Colonization Society” soon won backing from some of the young nation’s most prominent citizens. Henry Clay, Francis Scott Key, John Randolph, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, Bushrod Washington, Charles Carroll, Millard Fillmore, John Marshall, Roger B. Taney, Andrew Jackson, Daniel Webster, Stephen A. Douglas, and Abraham Lincoln were members. Clay presided at the group’s first meeting.8
Measures to resettle Blacks in Africa were soon undertaken. Society member Charles Fenton Mercer played an important role in getting Congress to pass the Anti-Slave Trading Act of March 1819, which appropriated $100,000 to transport Blacks to Africa. In enforcing the Act, Mercer suggested to President James Monroe that if Blacks were simply returned to the coast of Africa and released, they would probably be re-enslaved, and possibly some returned to the United States. Accordingly, and in cooperation with the Society, Monroe sent agents to acquire territory on Africa’s West coast — a step that led to the founding of the country now known as Liberia. Its capital city was named Monrovia in honor of the American President.9
With crucial Society backing, Black settlers began arriving from the United States in 1822. While only free Blacks were at first brought over, after 1827, slaves were freed expressly for the purpose of transporting them to Liberia. In 1847, Black settlers declared Liberia an independent republic, with an American-style flag and constitution.10
By 1832 the legislatures of more than a dozen states (at that time there were only 24), had given official approval to the Society, including at least three slave-holding states.11 Indiana’s legislature, for example, passed the following joint resolution on January 16, 1850:12
Be it resolved by the General Assembly of the State of Indiana: That our Senators and Representatives in Congress be, and they are hereby requested, in the name of the State of Indiana, to call for a change of national policy on the subject of the African Slave Trade, and that they require a settlement of the coast of Africa with colored men from the United States, and procure such changes in our relations with England as will permit us to transport colored men from this country to Africa, with whom to effect said settlement.
In January 1858, Missouri Congressman Francis P. Blair, Jr., introduced a resolution in the House of Representatives to set up a committee
to inquire into the expediency of providing for the acquisition of territory either in the Central or South American states, to be colonized with colored persons from the United States who are now free, or who may hereafter become free, and who may be willing to settle in such territory as a dependency of the United States, with ample guarantees of their personal and political rights.
Blair, quoting Thomas Jefferson, stated that Blacks could never be accepted as the equals of Whites, and, consequently, urged support for a dual policy of emancipation and deportation, similar to Spain’s expulsion of the Moors. Blair went on to argue that the territory acquired for the purpose would also serve as a bulwark against any further encroachment by England in the Central and South American regions.13
– Robert Morgan
Sadly, it seems the second amendment seems to have given blacks license to murder each other. See murder rates statistics for examples. But being a good communist means that one projects all their misdeeds on others. And definitely in America today Mugabe/Mandela tactics of ” whitey is the problem so let’s kill him” is the solution for a culture that is violent by their nature. Projection and deflection has never allowed anyone to become emotionally intelligent, which seems to be sorely lacking in todays America.
Judith,
I would love to witness your standing up in Professor Turley’s law classroom and repeating what you have posted here in order to get his visceral reaction! How it is that a rational legal analyst can attract the likes of you is a mystery to me. Do you think Turley would agree with your commentary? Don’t you realize he would be aghast at your remark that the “second amendment seems to have given blacks license to murder each other“?
It’s a grave mistake for Turley not to take it upon himself to denounce your atrocious views on this blog as he surely would were you a student in his classroom.
BLM has been hijacked and politicized by the elites in order to divide and conquer the masses