Second Amendment....for the southern slave owners?

Second Amendment....for the southern slave owners?

While there may be some truth to that, I think that it is more likely a reference back to one of the powers of Congress (in Article 1, Section 8) which states:  "To provide for calling forth the Militia (for 3 purposes) to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions."  I'm sure southern states were concerned about slave uprisings (although it is not clear to me why that would be considering how they were treated--see 12 Years A Slave).  If those southern militias were used for anything it would more likely have been to capture run away slaves.  So they had to put in the 2nd Amendment for slave owners?  The whole United States needed to be able to call up well-armed and well-trained militias for the reasons stated in Article 1, Section 8.  I think what the states did with their militias when they weren't called upon by Congress was their business and if they wanted to send them out to round up run away slaves...that was their prerogative.

 I do understand why whites might have feared an organized slave rebellion since there were more of them than there were of whites, and whites understood how poorly they treated their "animals"!

Face the truth. Using the 2nd Amendment to maintain a gun culture was never the founders' intent. The 2nd Amendment is there to Amend a section of Article 1, Section 8. No provision was made on how the militias of the states would be armed when called upon by Congress to take care of 3 specific issues: To Execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel invasions. Citizen Militias had to always be ready if Congress called upon them. The 2nd Amendment is obsolete because we now have a fully funded military force for Congress to call up when needed. That is what amendments do...they fill in the blanks left when the Constitution was written. If the Constitution had been complete when signed, we would not have 27 Amendments. The desire to retain arms refers back to something more sinister....the failed attempt by many states to overcome the Union by seceding from it. I believe the trouble stirred up now has more to do with insurrection than with the right to own weapons---we have that without the need of an Amendment to guarantee it. The many states have the right to require registration and licensing of weapons just as they do with cars. People who disagree with that are trying to overcome the government of the United States. Period. So let this futile argument be ended, here and now and let us agree that we are stronger together than fighting among ourselves!

Are you with me?

Why the USA is no longer "the greatest" country in the world






Are you with me?

Religion's Experience of God:

 

  I would say that the big three are based on "books" written by men under the claim of being inspired by god.  I don't judge anyone's beliefs about god since I understand them to be experience based.  I think we can agree that human beings do not experience anything in the same way.  Like the poem, "The Elephant and the Blind Men".....each touches a different part and describes what he feels: ie. one touches the side and says the elephant is like a wall.  The "holy books" of religion are descriptions of human experiences of the intangible force we call "god".  My own life experiences have taught me to trust my internal experience over anyone else's experience.  And while I may find verses in the holy books that reinforce my experience, I don't need a religion or it's holy book to define me or mine.  There is a verse in the Christian bible (Letters of John) which helps me tell others about my experience and that is:  "God is love, and he (she) who abides in love abides in God and God in him (her)"   I believe that these books as you said so clearly were written for men by men.  I think religions and their practices give men the assurance that their experience is real.  I think women, in general, experience on an intuitive level (why there are so many women among the religious mystics) and why the rubrics etc., invented by men hold little attraction for women.  Many years ago, the idea of "god is dead" presented a real problem (I believe) for the traditional believer of any religion.  It wasn't so much that god was dead but that god needs to be described by the experiences of many people through time.  God is an evolving concept so those religious people who deny evolution are denying (in my opinion) the presence of god at the heart of the universe.  It's a concept that is no longer rigid or fixed and that can be experienced by any of us without making it a challenge to anyone's beliefs.  Find god or not....it doesn't matter.  What matters is how you live your life inside the reality of your experience.