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 The 2nd Amendment is obsolete because we now have a fully funded military force for Congress to call up when needed.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?