Posted on 03/24/2008 12:30:11 PM PDT by neverdem
Nearly 135 years ago, the United States experienced what may have been the worst one-day slaughter of blacks by whites in its history. On April 13, 1873, in the tiny village of Colfax, La., white paramilitaries attacked a lightly armed force of freedmen assembled in a local courthouse. By the time the Colfax Massacre was over, more than 60 African American men lay shot, burned or stabbed to death. Most were killed after they had surrendered.
Though it caused a national sensation in post-Civil War America, this horrible incident has been largely overlooked by historians. It deserves fresh study today not only to illuminate the human cost of Reconstruction's defeat but also to enrich our understanding of constitutional history. Some of the most relevant lessons relate to the issue at the heart of District of Columbia v. Heller, the case on the D.C. gun control law currently before the Supreme Court: whether the Constitution guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms.
During oral arguments on Tuesday, the justices debated what the framers of the Second Amendment intended. The members of the court did not mention Reconstruction. Yet during this period, we the people gave the Union a second "founding" through constitutional amendments abolishing slavery, granting blacks citizenship and enabling them...
--snip--
Firearms pose threats to modern-day urban dwellers -- crime, suicide, accidents -- that may outweigh any self-defense they provide. Unlike 19th-century rural Americans, we can call on professional police.
In the D.C. gun case, the Supreme Court should find that local governments may enact reasonable and necessary restrictions on dangerous weapons. To be sure, if the justices also back an individual right to keep and bear arms, that will be harder for legislators to do. But as a matter of historical interpretation, the court would be correct.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
When seconds count, the police are only minutes away, but they are doing really important work, writing summonses and raising revenue.
Common sense from the ComPost???
Are there pigs flying somewhere?
Why not go back more recent. April 19,1993!
Read it again. Pigs resoundingly on terra firma.
That statement is asinine. The police cannot protect you when someone is breaking into your home at 3 am, and they will tell you so.............
Haven’t there been court cases that said that the police are NOT responsible for an individual’s safety?
What really needs to be studied is how this new republic reject finds a forum to spew his liberal tripe.
How is it possible for a person to write eight paragraphs of coherent historical discussion strongly supporting the need for the government to recognize an individual’s right to keep and bear arms, and then conclude with five sentences that directly contradict every point just made?
I guess only someone with a graduate degree in journalism can be that foolish.
On a side note, many of my state’s gun laws were enacted during Reconstruction to disarm blacks. Racist Democrats supported them then, and Democrats (who may still be racists) support them today. It’s just a little surprising to see an article in a major national newspaper that supports these gun laws even while explicitly acknowledging their racist purpose.
Check again. Although the article was common sense, the idiot author managed to force a conclusion exactly opposite of what the article stated.
It all depends on how any particular government agency chooses to define “reasonable and necessary.” I’m willing to bet their definition is a lot less 2nd Amendment friendly than I would be happy with.
Not to mention that if I wanted to commit suicide, there’s dozens of ways to do it that have nothing to do with firearms.
More racebaiting from the Compost.
Nope ... for that ya gotta call Hillary!.
The Eloi and the Morlocks..............
Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone
I believe that is the last decision in a long line of them. To add insult to injury, felons can't be prosecuted for not registering their firearms.
It pays to save your links.
Heller is about interpreting the 2nd Amendment, specifically an individual's right to own a handgun in the District of Columbia.
Nothing to do with racism, everything to do with the right to bear arms.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.