I just gave a talk on what we learn from the History of the Second Amendment to Lift Every Voice Oregon and The Youth Leadership Academy to end gun violence.

An [edited] transcription is here: terikanefield.com/what-we-learn-…

I will have an audio recording to post. Meanwhile . . .
The talk is too long for a Twitter thread (35 minutes plus questions!) but I can put a few takeaways here.

What do we learn from studying the history of the Second Amendment?

First, there have always been gun control laws . . .
. . . there were gun control laws in the U.S. before the ratification of the Second Amendment and immediately after. The idea that the Second Amendment was intended to allow unfettered access to guns is therefore nonsensical.
Second, the history of the Second Amendment is steeped in our racist past. Militias at the time were used (mostly) to police enslaved populations. The Second Amendment was written by slaveowners to protect the institution of slavery. The history of gun laws . . .
. . . is also steeped in our racist past. Finally, the idea on which the Second Amendment was based (citizen militias) has no relevance (obviously) in the twenty-first centery.

For arguments and details, see the blog post. terikanefield.com/what-we-learn-…
I have a recording of this talk, but I rerecorded it on my ipad, which has a bit better quality.

Link coming soon.
#1: There is a difference between a culture in which racial segregation and women without rights is decreed by law and when it occurs de facto.

#2: Before the modern civil rights and women's rights movement, the "hierarchy" was in place by law.
The "things haven't changed in the past 100 years" argument is just as faulty as "we no longer have racial segregation, so racism is no longer a problem."

First, it discounts the incredible changes that have taken place and the hard work that has gone into bringing them about.
Second, the patriarchy that existed in the 19th and early 20th was put in place and maintained by laws that legalized slavery, then created Jim Crow, and laws excluding women from the professions.

So yeah, it's not the same today.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Teri Kanefield

Teri Kanefield Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @Teri_Kanefield

19 Apr
Last night, @HC_Richardson ended her thought-provoking letter by asking this:

"Last month, six in ten Republicans in a Reuters/Ipsos poll said they believed the election was stolen. Where do Republican lawmakers think this is going to end?"

Heather Cox Richardson is the author of⤵️, so the question comes from someone with a deep knowledge of party history.

It seems to me that the GOP leaders have no long-term plan, and no long-range ideas or visions.

They have a short-term plan: Win at any cost and hold power.

2/ Image
Scholar @jasonintrator defines fascism as a set of tactics for seizing and maintaining power."

The fascist wants power. They do what it takes to achieve that power.

It comes from cynicism: They think everyone is out for power.

Read 11 tweets
18 Apr
Here you go: More than you ever wanted to know about the history of the Second Amendment:

I did a short thread yesterday, but I think I'll expand it today into a more complete thread.

Stand by for an [edited] transcription if you prefer to read.
Transcription: terikanefield.com/wp-admin/post.…

So what do we learn from the history of the Second Amendment?

Takeaway #1: There have always been gun control laws in America.

Examples from this incredible work of scholarship by @MarkFrassetto papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf…
2/ This one, from Jamestown, 1631, makes it illegal to sell or give guns to Native Americans. Several other colonies passed similar laws.

White traders were profiting from the selling of guns, and the leaders of the colony said no. (Also "we want to be the only ones with guns"). Image
Read 23 tweets
16 Apr
If you haven't seen this, oh goodness. sfgate.com/news/article/v…
I have a little white terrier, and JJ would totally do this.

I can translate that final bark into people-talk: "And don't come back!" the little terrier told the bear.
The video is here:
My terrier took on a raccoon who jumped the fence and came into our backyard. JJ survived. He needed some stitches and shots.

This particular raccoon was not as mellow and good-natured as a bear.

If you're curious how that fight ended. . .
Read 5 tweets
14 Apr
We need to divide the people responsible for the attack into two groups:
🔹The thugs who carried out the attack
🔹The leaders who didn't actually storm the capital, but who either aided with the planning or in some way enabled the attack.

It's easier to catch the first group.
The second group has deniability. They have more defenses and wiggle room.
They can point the finger at the first group.

But ultimately, it's fundamentally unfair to prosecute the foot soldiers but not the generals.
They're doing that. But the foot soldiers don't have all the information.

The foot soldiers may not understand why they were actually able to get so far.

Read 9 tweets
11 Apr
Did Trump incite a riot under the D.C. code?

You’re probably thinking, "Yes, DUH." But I marched through the legal analysis.

As before, I found it easier to record a video.

If you prefer to read, stand by for a transcription. via @YouTube

An edited transcription is here: terikanefield.com/did-trump-inci…

I should have called this video Fun With Criminal Law (or Teri Does IRAC).

I’ll also do a quick Twitter summary. (Spoiler: Yes he incited a riot, duh. But . . .)

D.C. A.G. Karl Racine said he’s looking into whether Trump and others violated D.C. Code section 22-1322, inciting a riot.

To get a conviction, a prosecutor has to prove each relevant element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

The relevant elements are (a) and (c).

Read 15 tweets
6 Apr
I read the lawsuit the capitol police officers (Blassingame and Hemby) brought against Trump.

In a nutshell: This case is bad for Trump.

My analysis seemed too long for a thread, so I recorded a video (9 minutes).

I'll have a transcription shortly.

If, like me, you prefer to read, I put an [edited] transcription on my blog, here: terikanefield.com/blassingame-v-…

To summarize, this case is bad for Trump for a whole bunch of reasons.

🔹First, the plaintiffs sustained actual injuries . . .

Some of these tort cases are a bit weak because the plaintiffs have a hard time showing why they should have standing to sue. (Also, these are particularly sympathetic plaintiffs.)

🔹The facts are bad for Trump. The facts in this case are devastating.

Read 15 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!