[Marxism] Fwd: United States Policing and "Gun Rights" Began With Slave Patrols

DW dwaltersmia at gmail.com
Fri Jan 19 07:30:57 MST 2018


The idea that the 2nd Amendment is forever tarnished with "slave patrols"
is silly. That's the only reason to raise it, correct? So that the anti-gun
left can feel at ease at opposing one of the Amendments from the Bill of
Rights. First, let me say I agree with Mark. There was far more application
of this on an every day basis on the Frontier, "West of the Hudson" as it
was noted in the beginning of the film, *The Last of Mahicans*, than were
was with "slave patrols". As slave patrols only involved a very, very small
percentage of slave states populations, popular settler ownership of
muzzle-loading muskets was almost universal outside of the "big" cities.

If you want to tarnish the 2A then the same can be said of the 1A as this
was reserved *in practice* for white males. As was the whole of the Bill of
Rights. Yet historically the left always defended it save for the 10th
Amendment (States Rights). ALL the amendments represented a kind of
compromise with the various 'stakeholders' of the white population. The 2nd
Amendment had little do with 'slave patrols'. One wonders where this arose
from? It DID have to do *in part* with maintaining slavery, at least from
Jefferson's POV, but nothing so silly as the few thousand part time and
full time members of southern slave patrols. It was to counter Hamilton's
wish for a Federal controlled central standing army to protect the early
U.S. from future British and French military (and economic) pressure on the
new country. Jefferson feared that a permanent army *could* be used to
squash states rights and thus wanted to counter-balance such an army with
the state militia systems (which had provided about half the troops during
the Revolution, though they didn't preform well against British regulars).
Part of the argument also include a Federal imposed ban on Slavery in the
future (no one as talking about Abolition in the immediate sense and when
the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution).

It should be pointed out that every Supreme Court decision has upheld the
private gun ownership under the 2A and even a 1939 decision by SCOTUS
upheld the "Militia" as being *distinct* from the newly organized National
Guard units controlled by the States.

The 2A was conceived as a counter-weight to a possible abusive federalizing
centrality of any future gov't of the US (which included the unforeseen
momentum of the Abolitionist movement of which their was no inkling of in
the 1791 when the Bill of Rights was conceived).

I think those of you who are anti-gun (and would like the current gov't to
get rid of guns) should be more honest and say you would like to see the
2nd Amendment stricken from the Constitution. A few very honest lefty types
have called for this. I went to a panel at the Zinn Book Fair in October
(sponsored in large party by the ISO and Haymarket) which had a speaker
advocating just that. We had an interesting debate on this issue. But it's
funny how few people on the anti-gun left actually advocate for this. Odd.

David Walters



More information about the Marxism mailing list