There has been a lot of very loud talk about the second amendment to the United States constitution since the senseless slaughter of the children in Newtown, Connecticut. At first, restrictions were sought regarding some of the weapons that are obtained easily by nearly anybody. New York adopted much needed legislation which contains rather mild weapons restrictions. Since then, there has been back sliding by many politicians. Some have invoked the historical second amendment traditions as they perform their flip on this issue. A brief review of the background of the second amendment is instructive.

The Second Amendment to the United States constitution reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The word "state" was carefully chosen by the framers of the constitution rather the word "country." Why was that choice was made? Thom Hartmann, a news analyst and political commentator, among others, finds that the answer lies in the existence of the "slave patrols" which were active in the South of the 1700's. An article in the University of California Law Review from 1998, cited Mr. Hartmann, explored this issue and noted that in Georgia, state law required that there be patrols, operating under the state militia's control, to apprehend runaway slaves. Before the constitution was ratified there were many slave uprisings throughout the South. Because slavery can only exist in a police state, enforcement of the rules of the police state was the militia's job and that job was important to the South since it meant survival of its political, economic and social systems.

Mr. Hartmann also noted that during the debate over the constitution the southern states feared that congress, which was given power to raise and supervise a militia (Article 1, Section 8) would absorb state militias into the federal army. The southerners also feared that slaves might achieve freedom by joining the military. This had already happened during the American Revolution, where the British and, in some circumstances, General Washington offered freedom to slaves in exchange for army service.

Because the southern states were needed for ratification of the constitution, the word "country," which had appeared in the first draft of the amendment, was changed to "state," thereby removing the state militias from federal control. This preserved the southern states' ability to have "slave patrols," and not be hampered by federal rules or other constitutional provisions. The Second Amendment was modified to help preserve the worst and most destructive institution in our nation's history.

Another slavery related trend is occurring today as thirteen states have adopted laws which, in varying ways, hold that no federal gun legislation will have any validity or be enforced within their borders. Kansas has made it a felony to enforce federal law regarding fire arms. Alabama declared all federal gun related laws to be in violation of the second amendment, thereby neatly avoiding judicial procedures and decisions. Aside from the unconstitutionality of those statutes, they have another interesting feature. They are the product of the nullification doctrine which was the brain child of John C. Calhoun, the antebellum senator from South Carolina and vice president under Andrew Jackson. He theorized that a state could simply nullify federal laws with which the state did not agree. This theory was advanced to enable states to avoid enforcing anti-slavery laws of any type. The unconstitutional way of thinking has been embraced by some contemporary state legislatures that are looking for headlines and court battles, rather than solving serious social problems.

You may also hear the claim that there is no evidence that gun control of any type reduces gun related crimes or deaths by gun shot. This ignores the experiences of Canada and the European nations which demonstrate that regulations do, in fact, work.

As Mr. Hartmann and others have noted, corporate weapons manufacturers, together with today's politicians have elevated the second amendment, born in a slavery related compromise, to a position beyond the intention of the framers of the constitution and beyond the reasonable expectations of a large majority of Americans. This situation is shameful.