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

Mark Lause markalause at gmail.com
Fri Jan 19 08:21:15 MST 2018


I don't think it's quite accurate to pose this issue as either all or
nothing.

The entire issue was inseparable from the idea of maintaining a popular
militia, which the ruling class abandoned after Reconstruction and the 1877
strike . . . and came to be essentially displaced as the key institution
for defense by the gargantuan military machine.  Rather than deal with this
as the NRA has defined the issue, I think we should discuss that machine.

Arguing about whether or not the masses have a right to keep their own
muzzle-loaders at home means little when we have a mall guards and campus
cops armed like swat teams, a militarized police, and a military fully
capable of calling in air strikes to deal with our commemorative 1871
barricade.

.





On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 9:30 AM, DW via Marxism <marxism at lists.csbs.utah.edu
> wrote:

> ********************  POSTING RULES & NOTES  ********************
> #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
> #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
> #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
> *****************************************************************
>
> 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
> _________________________________________________________
> Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
> Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/
> options/marxism/markalause%40gmail.com
>



More information about the Marxism mailing list