Now I'll tell you about how the Second Amendment came to be added to the Constitution.
The Amendment was written by enslavers who were worried that a strong federal government would outlaw local militias (or disarm them).
Source:
4/
Delegates from all over Virginia met in the Virginia State House to debate whether to ratify the Constitution.
The delegates were enslavers worried about whether the federal government would take away their guns.
Stand by for some quotations . . .
5/
This is George Mason musing about how the federal government, under the Constitution as drafted, might dismantle their local militias (screenshot #1)
Patrick Henry was the one who came right out and said it.
First, he said militias were their "ultimate safety" . . . (#2)
6/
Patrick Henry reminded the other delegates that slavery was "detested everywhere" and suggested that because the Constitution as drafted allowed the federal government to call up an army, there was a loophole allowing the federal government to set free enslaved men.
7/
Lest there be any doubt what Patrick Henry was talking about, he said this (#1)
He was the guy who reportedly said, "Give me liberty or give me death."
What he evidently meant was "Give me the liberty to own slaves and the freedom to own guns to keep them in line."
8/
(I'm just warming up to this topic. This may take me a while)
There were lots of gun control laws enacted after the Second Amendment was passed.
The Supreme Court was cool with these and said this⤵️
Wanna know why the Supreme Court in 1875 said it was perfectly cool for the states to pass whatever gun control laws they wanted ⤵️
The case, U.S. v. Cruikshank was about the Colfax massacre, and Black men were defending themselves with guns.
Mustn't have that.
10/
The Supreme Court was also cool with Illinois restricting the carrying of guns when the people wielding the guns were the heads of labor unions (those radicals!)
You see, what mattered was who was holding the gun.
11/
Sawed-off machine guns were getting to be a problem in the gangster world. The gangsters in question were immigrants.
In response, Congress passed the Firearms Act of 1934.
Here's something you may not know about the NRA. . .
12/
The NRA was founded by a Union general and Northern journalist as a gun safety organization because the Union soldiers were so inept with their guns and sometimes accidentally shot each other.
The NRA was cool with the Firearms Act of 1934.
13/
In fact, Karl Frederick, NRA spokesperson, testified before Congress that he took no position on whether the Firearms Act of 1934 violated the 2nd Amendment.
He also said he was cool with laws restricting the "general promiscuous toting of guns."
(Instead of stopping to find my sources, later I'll put this on my blog with a bibliography and citations. I have it all here somewhere.)
What caused the NRA to change from a gun safety organization into what it is today?
The Civil Rights movement changed everything.
15/
Before the 1970s, NRA members were members of both political parties who wanted training and marksmanship competitions.
But there arose a radicalized faction that asserted (for the first time in our history) that the 2nd Amendment allowed for unfettered access to guns.
16/
In 1979 at the NRA convention, the radicalized faction took over the NRA.
It was called the "Revolt at Cincinatti."
Should I keep going and talk about the ties between the NRA and modern white militias?
(The @The1619Project is also a good source. I just had other citations handy, so I used those.)
The radicalization of the NRA was part of the backlash against the Civil Rights movement, which was seen as an abuse of federal power. . .
18/
Before the 1950s, all our institutions (government, universities, industries) were run almost entirely by White men.
That changed because of federal legislation (the Civil Rights Act of 1965, the Voting Rights Act, etc.) and the 1954 case that outlawed racial segregation.
19/
The NRA, like other right-wing extremist groups, saw the expanding federal government as a threat to their “personal liberty.”
The radicalized NRA found a new home with white supremacists who wanted guns so they could form anti-government mililtias.
20/
We all know what happened next: The NRA started funding politicians and turning out the vote for politicians that would adopt this new and radicalized idea that the Second Amendment guaranteed unfettered access to guns.
21/
By the time SCOTUS decided D.C. v. Heller, a majority of justices had been appointed by presidents who were members of the NRA.
In Heller, the Supreme Court held that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual’s right to own guns (unconnected to a well-regulated militia).
22/
Now for Russia's ties to the NRA.
My source for info about Russia is from a scholar of European authoritarianism, @TimothyDSnyder.
"When Putin took a close look at the U.S. for weaknesses to exploit, he noticed the uncontrolled gun violence in America."
23/
Putin understood that there was no better way to stoke discord in the U.S. than to pump more guns into the hands of ordinary people? chicagotribune.com/entertainment/…
Outsiders (like Russians) understand right away that the idea that “gun ownership equals freedom” is nonsensical.
24/
Russian spy Maria Butina entered the US with a persona perfectly calibrated to appeal to the far right-wing.
She told an irresistible story: A “scrappy” girl from Siberia fighting for gun rights in Russia.
He knew white supremacy militias want to be the kind of paramilitaries that enforce authoritarian regimes (because they hate the federal government).
26/
Then someone comes along and posts an example of the 2nd Amendment as a vehicle for anti-government paramilitaries⤵️
This anti-federal government anger grew after the New Deal and Civil Rights movement expanded the government, but of course, ties back to the Confederacy.
27/
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
For years I was perplexed by what I was seeing on left-leaning Twitter, political blogs, and partisan reporting.
I had the feeling that, in its way, what I was seeing was comparable to Fox: Lots of bad information and even unhinged conspiracy theories.
2terikanefield.com/invented-narra…
Of course, if I suggested that, I was blasted for "both-sidesing."
Then I discovered an area of scholarship: Communications and the overlap between communications and political science.
Another contradiction: when people demanded indictments RIGHT NOW (in 2021 and early 2022) the reason was, "Everyone knows he's guilty! Look at all the evidence!"
We saw the J6 committee findings.
Trump isn't saying "I didn't do it." He's saying, "I had the right to do it."
2
We all know what he did. The question is, "Do people want a president who acts like Trump?"
A lot of people do.
People show me polls that a guilty finding would change minds.
I say rubbish. Use common sense. He lost in 2020 and he lost the popular vote in 2016. . .
3/
. . . because it is designed to keep people hooked. People need to stay glued to the screen for hour after hour.
But to hook people, you need to scare them. The Facebook whistleblower testified that content that produces strong emotions like anger gets more engagement.
2/
Fox does the same thing. There is a few minutes of news, but the facts get lost as commentators and TV personalities speculate and scare their audiences.
Before you yell at me for comparing MSNBC to FOX, read all of this:
If I write another blog post addressing the outrage cycle here on Twitter and in the MSNBC ecosystem, it will be to explore why so many people who believe they are liberal or progressive actually want a police state.
1/
Today alone, a handful of people who consider themselves liberal or progressive told me that the "traitors need to be arrested and prosecuted."
In 2019, back when I wore myself out tamping down misinformation, I explained the legal meaning of treason.
2/
Back then, I now realize, people asked politely: "Can Trump be prosecuted for treason (over the Russia election stuff).
I explained that wouldn't happen.
Now it's different. It's more like fascist chants.
3/