I mentioned that I myself had come to very similar conclusions some time before, and he asked when that had happened. I told him it had been inand I think he found my answer quite surprising. I got the sense that date was decades earlier than would have been given by almost anyone else he knew.
Arms and the Antebellum Experience a. Arms and the Southern Order p. A History Ignored Conclusion: Self-Defense and the Gun Control Question Today It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognized as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, It is a constitutional debate that has taken place largely in the absence of Supreme Court opinion.
The debate over the Second Amendment is ultimately part of the larger debate over gun control, a debate about the extent to which the Amendment was either meant to be or should be interpreted as Kkk essay conclusion the ability of government to prohibit or limit private ownership of firearms.
Waged in the popular press,  in the halls of Congress,  and increasingly in historical and p. Advocates of stricter gun controls have tended to stress the Amendment's Militia Clause, arguing that the purpose of the Amendment was to ensure that state militias would be maintained against potential federal encroachment.
This argument, embodying the collective rights theory, sees the framers' primary, indeed sole, concern as one with the concentration of military power in the hands of the federal government, and the corresponding need to ensure a decentralized military establishment largely under state control.
They argue that, while maintaining a "well-regulated militia"  was the predominate reason for including the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights, it should not be viewed as the sole or p.
They argue that the framers also contemplated a right to individual and community protection. This debate has raised often profound questions, but questions generally treated hastily, if at all, by the community of constitutional scholars.
If the Second Amendment was designed to ensure the existence of somewhat independent state militias immune from federal encroachment, then the question arises to what extent states are free to define militia membership.
Could a state include as members of its militia all adult citizens, thus permitting them an exemption from federal firearms restrictions? If, instead, the federal government has plenary power to define militia membership and chooses to confine such membership to the federally controlled National Guard, does the Second Amendment become a dead letter under the collective rights theory?
If the collective rights theory raises difficult questions, the individual rights theory raises perhaps even more difficult, and perhaps more interesting ones. Some of these questions are obvious and frequently asked, such as where to draw the line between an individual's right to possess arms and the corollary right to self-defense on the one hand, and the community's interest in public safety and crime control on the other.
Other questions are more elusive, more difficult to pose as well as to answer. At the heart of the individual rights view is the contention that the framers of the Second Amendment intended to protect the right to bear arms for two related purposes.
The first of these was to ensure popular participation in the security of the community, an outgrowth of the English and early American reliance on posses and militias made up of the general citizenry to provide police and military forces.
The framers had firsthand experience with such a phenomenon, but they lived in an age when the weapon likely to be found in private hands, the single shot musket or pistol, did not differ considerably from its military counterpart.
Although the armies of the day possessed heavier weapons rarely found in private hands, battles were fought predominately by infantry or cavalry with weapons not considerably different from those employed by private citizens for personal protection or hunting.
For individual rights theorists, this shift immediately raises the question of whether, given the tremendous changes that have occurred in weapons technology, the framers' presumed intention of enabling the population to resist tyranny remains viable in the modern world.
Where should the proper lines be drawn with respect to modern firearms, all of which employ technologies largely unimagined by the framers? In the eighteenth century, the chief vehicle for law enforcement was the posse comitatus, and the major American military force was the militia of the whole.
While these institutions are still recognized by modern law,  they lie dormant in late twentieth-century America. Professional police forces and a standing military p.
It is possible that the concept of a militia of the armed citizenry has been largely mooted by social change. Yet, the effect of social change on the question of the Second Amendment is a two-edged sword.
If one of the motivating purposes behind the Second Amendment was to provide a popular check against potential governmental excess, then does the professionalization of national and community security make the right to keep and bear arms even more important in the modern context?
Furthermore, the question remains whether the concept of a militia of the whole is worth re-examining:Investigating Possible Conspiracies and Cover-ups – JFK, The Moon Landings, etc.
By Wade Frazier. Revised June Introduction. Gary Wean and the JFK Assassination. Aug 25, · The #TruCons and the #LyingPress are all floating their own self-serving definitions in light of Hillary’s big speech this afternoon which will attack the Alt-Right.
The whole point of the speech is to distract the public from her own exploding scandals . The recurring, tired refrain that we should have a white history month if there is a black history month, or white student unions on campuses, is unintentionally being given new life by the Left.
3 According to Farrakhan’s historical crew, there is “an undeniable record of Jewish anti-Black behavior, starting with the horror of the trans-Atlantic slave trade, plantation slavery, Jim Crow. About a decade ago, I happened to be talking with an eminent academic scholar who had become known for his sharp criticism of Israeli policies in the Middle East and America’s strong support for them.
Power of Prophecy is a Bible-believing Christian ministry. Enter here to learn about Bible Prophecy and what it means to you.