A proper understanding of the second amendment guaranteeing the right to bear arms is less about tyrannical governments than it is about slave-holding southern states needing to maintain armed posses to keep their black populations under control. They feared northern states might abridge the right.
When viewed this way, it isn’t ironic, it’s actually inevitable that a racist, fascist minority would take up arms against their countrymen to impose their own brand of rough justice. The right to bear arms here is racist to the core, and meant to enable minority rule, not individual freedoms.
Well that's just a bizarre claim. More Northern States wanted the 2A than Southern States.
Irrelevant. This was always in the context of “well-regulated militias”. Very different from a slave-holder mob. As the north moved toward regulation, the south moved toward a more absolutist interpretation of the right.
LOL, it's very relevant. The guy who created the theory that you promote admits there's no direct evidence that it's true. Ever heard of the Whiskey Rebellion? Do you seriously think George Washington called up a "slave-holder mob"?
Seriously? You’re wrong. And I’m not going to start a huge argument on someone else’s thread. Goodbye, loser.
Muted. Not interested.
No, I'm not wrong. That you're obviously afraid to debate is noted though.