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

DW dwaltersmia at gmail.com
Fri Jan 19 19:58:45 MST 2018


I didn't see the actual original post by Louis until jut now, by the author
of Loaded: A Disarming History of the Second Amendment. Roxanne
Dunbar-Ortiz was in fact the person we debated at the Zinn Book Fair. And
*she* called for repealing the 2nd Amendment. She didn't explain how that
would solve the problem but she was honest enough to state it. I and others
argued against here. She gave a  totally one sided, almost a-historical
understand of the issue though, oddly, she covered a huge amount of history
as the link shows in the original post here.  She completely left out the
armed self-defense by Black and workers organizations that the 2nd
Amendment provided, drawing absolutely no lessons from this. It was a very
odd presentation because of this.

David

On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 7:21 AM, Mark Lause <markalause at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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/opt
>> ions/marxism/markalause%40gmail.com
>>
>
>



More information about the Marxism mailing list