3/5 compromise.
This must be the first time I heard that reasoning for its lack of mention. From where to you get that?
Yep, and so? Is the word “slave” mentioned there?
See here
where even Babale agreed with me-
So,this has been proven, and I am not gonna go over it again. The Founding Fathers actually thought Slavery was going to go away on it’s own. Yes, they were wrong- the cotton gin came around and the number of slaves in the USA more than quadruped, making many Southern slave owners filthy rich. Suddenly slavery was a Great idea again- because it made White men rich. It wasnt even very long- 50 years or so, until the Civil war.
Really? What do you think it was about?
Did you read my post? It was a compromise so the South would sign on to the Constitution. The word “slavery” was specifically not mentioned as the Founders thought it was dying out- which- it should have.
Another poster agreeing with you makes it established fact, so you don’t have to mention it again? I’m sorry, but when people ask for cites, that is not exactly what they are looking for.
So, they didn’t use the word “slavery” when it was explicitly about slavery?
That’s the important point?
The root cause is the fact that the ATF, CIA, FBI, Homeland spend almost no time breaking up criminalized gun rings so that the crime rate actually drops…legal gun owners shouldn’t be an issue and are not for the most part. But your comment on militias is important because that it what the government really cares about…Their scared stupid by the fact that they know it’s in our history and constitutional right to throw off the old guard if they fail in their duty, which they have. As far as public violence they could care less about people hurting others. If these agencies would do their job we would have less crime period.
And I gave cites. Read them.
It isnt. Mostly but other people were included- read it-
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all other Persons
It should be noted that neither the word slave nor the word slavery appears in this clause or anywhere in the unamended Constitution.
So indians not taxed and those bound to service for a term of years- that last was fairly common in the free states. And slaves. Mostly slaves, but there were not that many slaves then.
From your cite:
“…three-fifths of the enslaved population…”
I’ll leave it at that since I think we’ve gone way off track for this thread. If you want to start a new one about it I’d participate.
As far as I can tell about 20% of the population was enslaved. That includes the states with very small enslaved populations and states where 30-40% of their residents were enslaved.
The idea that slavery was unimportant to the slave owners who wrote the Constitution is absurd. The unamended Constitution also doesn’t mention marriage, I guess that institution was on its way out as well?
Around that, but after the cotton gin and big money from King Cotton, the number of slaves quadrupled.
In the NYT and I think The Atlantic, a couple of authors pushed the idea that everything in pre Civil war America was slavery based.
declaration of Independence- slavery, since the UK was starting to get rid of slaves.
Constitution- slavery.
Bill of rights- slavery
2nd ad- slavery
Police- "slavery, we would have police in America if it was for slavery and slave patrols, so we need to defund the Police, since the whole police idea was based on slavery. " 
Texas independence- slavery
And finally they got one right- Civil War - slavery.
Monomaniacal idiots.
No, slavery has not critical in America until the early 1800s, and the cotton gin.
Sure, but the free population more than quadrupled. By 1860 enslaved people were 12.5% of the population. How is that in increase in dependence on slavery?
Unless a straightforward connection between the issues can be established, I suggest the slavery debate be split to another thread.
The idea was to conflated anything and everything the writers didnt like with slavery, which of course we all accept was wrong and evil. Police? Slavery.
A well-regulated militia did have something going for it back in the early 1800’s, when the founders were deathly afraid of a standing professional army. The spirit of the 2A back then was that every able-bodied eligible male citizen could own a musket.
Let’s allow citizens to own long-guns for hunting, target-shooting, and home defense. But getting a handgun should be much harder than it currently is.
I’ll say this about the federal Constitution and rights in general: For the most part the federal Constitution was originally a workaday charter spelling out the structure and duties of the federal government, and how the states were to relate to it and to each other under it. Very little was originally said about natural rights at all other than a few references to banning practices from English/British law that were considered noxious, like bills of attainder or ex post facto laws. The whole idea of the Constitution being a document enshrining freedom comes from two things: the inclusion of a Bill of Rights after the fact, and that (at least in theory) the federal government was to be one of limited authority.
The Federalists argued that codifying rights was either unnecessary or futile: if they were upheld they were upheld, and if they weren’t a piece of paper wasn’t going save the day. Although how they reconciled a theoretical uprising by the People in defense of a right with the sort of authority-worship that produced the Alien And Sedition Acts, I don’t know.
Laws against “concealed” carry seem to originally have meant something closer to “concealable” guns– like anything that could be hidden in a pocket or under a coat instead of honest in-plain-sight long guns. I think the fact that such laws often referred even to the open carry of pistols might speak to this.
This is really getting into a gun control debate.
Yes, the idea that we don’t need a standing army if we have we can call up armed civilians should the need arise is ludicrously outdated, and so is the second amendment. The idea that it was meant so that any civilian should be allowed to carry any weapon at any time was basically invented by a lwa student in 1960, and popularized by NRA in the late 70’s after they were taken over by the crazies in 1977.
Here is a great article about it.
Honestly though, even if this works its way up and eventually the supremes decide that any ban on any firearm is unconstitutional, it impact on life in the US will be fairly minimal.
Random mass shootings will be more deadly but they are a minuscule fraction of the toll of gun violence in America. Police might be under a bit more of a threat, with the result that they too will be given access to military style automatic weaponry. The right will stop arguing about whether an AR-15 is an assault weapon. But otherwise that’s about it.
Yeah, a tiny minority think that, but most gun owners accept that every Right in the bill of Rights has reasonable limitations. The 2nd as well as the 1st. And, the NRA turned into a gun rights org due to states and cities starting to put harsh restrictions on guns.
If you read Heller, the Justices even specified a long list of general exceptions to possessing a gun.