Here’s an interesting law review article called The Hidden History of the Second Amendment. You can download and read the article at URL, http://lawreview.law.ucdavis.edu/issues/Vol31/vol31_no2.html.

The article describes the deliberations of our new nation over the right to bear arms. Apparently, at issue was the right of a state to maintain “a well regulated militia” to suppress slave revolts. Southerners knew of Northern hostility towards slavery and feared that Congress may be reluctant to support militias designed to suppress slave insurrections.

The object of the 2nd Amendment was neither to fight foreign aggression nor to fight domestic tyranny. Southern colonies were reluctant to commit their militias to the Revolutionary War, preferring to reserve them for slave control. Disappointed with the performance of militias during the Revolutionary War and during Shay’s Rebellion, the new nation sought a federal army to fight both foreign and domestic threats.

The 2nd Amendment had little to do with an individual’s right to bear arms. The reaction to Shay’s Rebellion removed any sentiment for a “right to rebel” against an oppressive state. It had much to do with the fear of slave revolts and the desire of Southern states to maintain “a well regulated Militia” to suppress these revolts.

The article asserts that an individual right to bear arms was a recent invention. When the NRA fought the Brady Bill, it did not cite the 2nd Amendment but instead cited the 10th Amendment exclusively. It was only later that the “Insurrectionist Theory” was formulated with NRA funding.

I invite everyone to read the article and comment.

Bullschit, to the inth-degree.

Incredibly poorly researched, and biased from the get-go.

Try reading some of Stephen Halbrook's work on the 2A. Legal scholarship that blows that hatchet job out of the water; vetted and peer-reviewed.

Further, that "article" is from 1998. See exactly what the SCOTUS thought, or rather, didn't think of it in Heller and McDonald.

That drivel from UC-Davis, written by Carl T. Bogus (such an appropriate name) isn't worth wiping your ass with. Bogus has made a career of trying to rewrite the Constitution to his socialist, anti-2A agenda for years.

He has failed, miserably, many times over on trying to sue the firearms industry under... convoluted... tort law claims, serving only to pad his own socialist reputation and add to his CV for his positions at Roger Williams School of Law in Rhode Island.

His work is, quite literally, laughable.

http://law.rwu.edu/carl-t-bogus

Yep, there is way too much original writing from the Founding Fathers available to believe that sort of revisionist BS.

Just more trying to rewrite history to fit someones agenda.

Bunch of BS.......................

Ted

Total BS. The term 'people' is used in several other amendments, always referring to an individual right.
1st amend: right of the people to freely assemble
4th amend: right of the people to be secure
9th amend: retained by the people
10th amend: to the people

The 2d clearly says 'of the people' and is no different than any of these others. It's an INDIVIDUAL right

A reading of Saul Cornell’s essay brings several things to mind. First, there has been a torrential outpouring of writings on Second Amendment issues for quite some years.In any event, it is easier to fathom the motivations of the National Rifle Association and Brady legislation supporters than it is the dozens of those who reside in the halls of ivy. To further complicate matters, one finds both liberals and conservatives on each side of the debate.

All the writings you can find from either side don't change the words "of the people". It can only mean 1 thing.

I find it hard to believe that the Bill of Rights pertains to the Military.

The battles at Lexington and Concorde happened where they did specifically because the Redcoats were coming to seize the colonial's arms, so it's only natural the founding fathers would be sensitive to the issue of a government attempting to deprive the common citizen of arms.

And as Brother whelennut has pointed out, the expressed purpose of all ten amendments of the Bill of Rights (indeed, all 12 of the proposed amendments, two of which failed to be ratified) was to limit the power of government over its citizenry. Any contention that even the tiniest portion of any of the ten was intended to bestow further power upon the government is absolutely assinine. ASS-I-9.

When the NRA fought the Brady Bill, SCOTUS had not yet set a precedent as to whom 2A pertained to (regardless, 10A should have sufficed). DC V Heller corrected SCOTUS' previous oversight.

+1 ZL5 and WhelenNut.