Danny Glover tells students Second Amendment was created to protect slavery

Originally posted by DZAG Wright
No a disproportionate number of presumed criminals in this country are black. It just so happens that a large number of white criminals have tilted the system to favor them (Congress, DEA, etc) so the crud they commit is legal or they aren't questioned concerning.

From what I can see, Glover's comments weren't racist, they were one side of a story. He never said anything like "kill whitey". Or taking this from a different angle....his comments were no different than yours above. Were your comments racist?

That is completely false, and utterly unproven. As for "tilting the system"; that is what programs like affirmative action do.

What Glover stated was that guns were protected to control one race. That's utter nonsense. His comments were fashioned to make one race resentful of another. That's flat out wrong. That's no different than some of the stupidity on the part of some teachers, telling students that all whites are "oppressors", and talking about "white privilege". Proclaiming things that are not true, that do not exist, to make people resent one another, is racism, of the worst sort. Not to mention the disservice he does to people, teaching them something that isn't real. So much for actual education.

I'm sorry but this is just complete and utter BS.

It really is sad that political groups can manipulate the public so easily simply because they are not educated in the history of their own country.

The 2nd amendment was added to the Constitution because the founders were following English law in coming up with the framework of government for this new Country. Secondary to that were the experiences of those men in fighting the revolutionary war and the incidents preceding it where England tried to disarm the colonists.

All the discussions, even the letters those men wrote about this are still around. You can read them in the Federalist Papers and other academic histories of the subject.

Slavery, disarming slaves, etc - was not part of that discussion.

It was later, during the ratification when some individuals in a few specific States introduced the subject into the discussions and debates within those State assemblies.

So, the left-wing sources making these claims are completely wrong. The 2nd amendment was put into the framework of the US government to protect citizens from tyranny and from being disarmed, period.

The accurate and factual way to put this would be that issues of slavery were discussed in some States during the debates surrounding the ratification.

There is a HUGE difference and the way this is being presented by these anti Gun rights sources is a manipulation of facts.

Anyone who cannot fathom the difference needs to spend some time doing research and learning to find multiple sources of information. Do not rely on political groups to educate you on history, they will NOT do so accurately.

Originally posted by solarjetman
1. Did you read the article I posted? It contains quotes from Patrick Henry himself, IN HIS OWN WORDS calling for state power to form militas in case of insurrection:

Henry then bluntly laid it out:
"If the country be invaded, a state may go to war, but cannot suppress [slave] insurrections [under this new Constitution]. If there should happen an insurrection of slaves, the country cannot be said to be invaded. They cannot, therefore, suppress it without the interposition of Congress . . . . Congress, and Congress only [under this new Constitution], can call forth the militia."

Please explain to me how a direct quote from a founding father addressing exactly what Glover was talking about is "utterly foolish and uneducated that has no basis in actual historical fact"?

2. The point is his acting ability has absolutely nothing to do with the content of his argument, and bringing it up is simply obfuscating the issues. It's nothing more than the adult version of calling someone a "stinky doodoo head."

3. "Playing the race card" implies crying wolf when there is none. Granted I too am sick of people crying racism at every little thing, given what I've read I'm convinced there actually could indeed be a wolf hidden in this case. Maybe the reason people are so tense in this thread is because the wolf is currently biting them in the ass.

Patrick Henry pointing out that people would not be allowed to defend themselves against an attack by revolting slaves doesn't mean that the 2'nd Amendment was written for that purpose. That is what Glover stated. What Henry was addressing was relevant to the times. At that time, slavery was a real part of daily life, and thus addressing potential problems with it was a valid concern. No one is stating that slavery was a good thing, but the slaves in America were certainly not the only people ever enslaved. People from every race, and from all over the world, have been slaves at one time or another throughout history. In the case of a slave insurrection, what would happen wasn't a move for freedom, but an attack on the slave owners, and on anyone else that wasn't a slave, with people being slaughtered. Defending against that would be something anyone living then should have been concerned with. None of that is relevant to the initial purpose of the 2'nd amendment.

Originally posted by ecoparity
I'm sorry but this is just complete and utter BS.

It really is sad that political groups can manipulate the public so easily simply because they are not educated in the history of their own country.

The 2nd amendment was added to the Constitution because the founders were following English law in coming up with the framework of government for this new Country. Secondary to that were the experiences of those men in fighting the revolutionary war and the incidents preceding it where England tried to disarm the colonists.

All the discussions, even the letters those men wrote about this are still around. You can read them in the Federalist Papers and other academic histories of the subject.

Slavery, disarming slaves, etc - was not part of that discussion.

It was later, during the ratification when some individuals in a few specific States introduced the subject into the discussions and debates within those State assemblies.

So, the left-wing sources making these claims are completely wrong. The 2nd amendment was put into the framework of the US government to protect citizens from tyranny and from being disarmed, period.

The accurate and factual way to put this would be that issues of slavery were discussed in some States during the debates surrounding the ratification.

There is a HUGE difference and the way this is being presented by these anti Gun rights sources is a manipulation of facts.

Anyone who cannot fathom the difference needs to spend some time doing research and learning to find multiple sources of information. Do not rely on political groups to educate you on history, they will NOT do so accurately.

actually all he did was point out that slaves were unarmed. If we are unarmed that puts us closer to being full fledged slaves.

That is the message I get. If you can't get past the race part then you are just as bad as glover. I am not white nor black and I get it.

everyone on here arguing about race is just as bad as glover.

what the founding fathers said means squat in this topic. this is what you need to focus on

>>>>slaves not armed

reply to post by Obsrvr


I guess he never heard of the Freedmen's Bureau Act or the 14th amendment....it is for personal security, No matter the spin ignorant socialites try to pin to it.

III. DOES THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
INCORPORATE THE SECOND AMENDMENT?
The only mention by the United States Supreme Court of the right to keep and bear arms before the Fourteenth Amendment was passed found the right to be protected from any infringement, including the state slave codes. In the Dred Scott decision, Chief Justice Taney wrote that citizenship "would give to persons of the negro race .. the full liberty of speech ... and (the right) to keep and carry arms wherever they went." Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393, 417 (1857). In other words, if blacks were citizens, then the Second Amendment would invalidate state laws which prohibited firearms possession by such citizens.

The Fourteenth Amendment was intended to eradicate the black codes, under which "Negroes were not allowed to bear arms or to appear in all public places..." Bell v. Maryland, 378 U.S. 226, 247-48 &n.3 (1964) (Douglas, J., concurring). In his concurring opinion in Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145, 166-67 (1968), Justice Black recalled the following words of Senator Jacob M. Howard in introducing the amendment to the Senate in 1866: "The personal rights guaranteed and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution; such as ... the right to keep and bear arms .... The great object of the first section of this amendment is, therefore, to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these great fundamental guarantees."

The Supreme Court has never determined whether the Fourteenth Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms from state infringement. However, Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1,5 (1964) states: "The Court has not hesitated to reexamine past decisions according the Fourteenth Amendment a less central role in the preservation of basic liberties than that which was contemplated by its Framers when they added the Amendment to our constitutional scheme.''[14]

The same two-thirds of Congress which proposed the Fourteenth Amendment also passed an enactment declaring that the fundamental rights of "personal liberty" and "personal (p.17)security" include "the constitutional right to bear arms. Freedmen's Bureau Act, §14, 14 Stat. 176 (July 16, 1866). This Act, and the companion Civil Rights Act of 1866, sought to guarantee the same rights that the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted to protect.

www.guncite.com...

reply to post by votan


NO, that's not what Glover said. He presented the suddenly popular theory appearing on all the anti gun / left wing websites right now that, quote:

"the 2nd amendment was created to protect slavery".

That is a complete distortion of fact and is a completely false statement designed to undermine people's knowledge.
It is a racially divisive tactic to rally support for anti gun legislation among the Black community and the political left wing.

Worse, it's an underhanded effort to label 2nd amendment supporters as racists who support slavery.

The unsaid part of this is that "if" the 2nd amendment was really created to protect slavery then it must somehow still be bad for Black folks. The last time I checked Black people in America do not have to be worried about being enslaved, at least not in the tradition sense (minimum wage jobs and horrible schools not counting in this case).

Basically, he's saying that anyone who supports the 2nd amendment actually supports slavery (since it was created solely for the purpose of keeping slavery in place). It's a completely ridiculous and false statement made by someone with the resources to be much better educated on the facts than this. So, either he knows what he says is false and doesn't care because he's trying to accomplish a political goal or he's so far gone into his political viewpoints he willingly accepts false information from his preferred sources without taking the time to research the issue for himself.

This just proves the point that even though some people have access to mass media and the ability to possibly influence public opinion we, as that public need to be intelligent enough to know better than to believe them simply because they can do so. Would you accept history lessons from the Jersey Shore cast? My advice would be to assume that any actor or entertainer making statements like this be viewed as being just as suspect.

Do your own research.

Pay attention to your sources and what agenda they may have to misinform you.

reply to post by cybro

Good point. If gun confiscations go into effect, that will leave guns in the hands of criminals: street thugs, the government etc.

Apparently, Glover didnt get the memo:

Originally posted by ecoparity
Unfortunately there is a purposeful agenda in the educational system which targets Black people with extreme left-wing material and revisionist history.

I spent over a year at an Urban community college to earn some of my core requisite credits "cheap" and in a misguided attempt to "broaden my horizons" before I transferred to one of the top schools in the country to finish my degree. At the time, I was young, a lot more liberal than I am now and because I had come from a sheltered community made up of 99.9% upper middle class Caucasians thought it would do me "good" to experience other cultures.

A bit part of this was being the only white male in my English Lit, Creative Writing and American History classes. not surprisingly, these classes were all taught by Black professors who converted the curriculum into "Black history month, 12 months per year". (Which was fine, that was one of my goals in even attending the school, to get some of the "hidden history" and other perspectives).

What I wasn't prepared for was the extent to which it was taken. Where I had no issues with Martin Luther King being presented as a great man spending months hearing how Malcom X was an elevated being second only to Jesus, more important than Gandhi, etc was hard to swallow. Worse, the students were expected to completely agree with the classroom point of view. There was no debate, no discourse. You were expected to nod your head and shout "yessir!" apparently.

History classes were the worst. All the founding fathers were evil slave holders, the Civil War had nothing to do with slavery (that it wasn't a war goal at the start publicly doesn't change the fact that Lincoln and the entire Republican party were abolitionists and planned to end slavery the minute they could do so, that drive almost derailing the effort due to the fact that Lincoln refused to compromise or wait further). They even taught that the entire, real reason for the establishment of the American colonies was ONLY to continue the practice of slavery due to England banning it. When things occurred, how, etc were not to be taken into consideration....

What's really scary about seeing crap like this in the media is the fact that so many people today have zero education in civics, US government, history, etc. They can make most any claim and millions of people will believe it because it was on T.V.

This is so true. I know many African Americans who believe this stuff. Its like they have their own history of the world, and unless youre black, youre evil and a part of the problem. And most I know are teaching their children this stuff.

Originally posted by Obsrvr

Danny Glover tells students Second Amendment created to protect slavery

The Constitution's Second Amendment was created to bolster slavery and capture land from Native Americans, award winning actor Danny Glover told a group of students at a Texas A&M sponsored event on Thursday.

Actor Danny Glover told students at Texas A&M University the intent of the Second Amendment was to protect slavery.

“I don’t know if you know the genesis of the right to bear arms,” he said. “The Second Amendment comes from the right to protect themselves from slave revolts, and from uprisings by Native Americans.”

“A revolt from people who were stolen from their land or revolt from people whose land was stolen from, that’s what the genesis of the second amendment is,” he continued.

Glover, best known for roles in the “Lethal Weapon” franchise and “Angels in the Outfield,” was addressing students at an event being held in honor of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Link to Absurd Article

As time goes by the statements coming from the black community about this, that and the other grow more and more outrageous. One has to wonder if this man ever cracked a history book of any stripe.

Even revisionists couldn't be so ignorant. Could they?

Does Glover know what the Revolutionary War is? Why it was fought? Does he understand the purpose of the Constitution? Can he see past the end of his own nose, or is the whole country condemned ad infinitum because a bunch of white guys in the South were too cheap to hire labor?

WTH does the Second Amendment have to do with slavery?

Not a G# thing.

edit on 1/19/13 by Obsrvr because: (no reason given)

While the Second was originally set up in 1791 as a a defense against imperialist powers overseas (Great Britain) , it eventually became a pawn in the "states rights" deabtes of the early 1800's. The second amendment wasn't established as a defense to slavery, but was levied by anti-federalists in states where slavery was legal as a reason to arm plantation owners withan arsenal for "slave revolts" or create anti -federalist militia's. Even after defeat in the civil war, the mantra by groups such as the sons of the confederacy that "the south will rise again" was followed by the arming of militias that stockpiled weapons for a "race war" they believed would occur. This practice is still alive today, along with the belief in some kind of race war of blacks against whites will happen. (where the plurality of asians and hispanics are supposed to be in thism, IDK..) The sons of the confederacy eventually became the KKK, and are still using the second amedment for these reasons.. These aer all historical fact... Found in any library.

So while Mr. Glover was incorrect in his assertion that the 1791 amendment was created for the purpose of furthering slavery ( If so, it obviously didn't work) It was eventually perverted to do so. It is nonetheless irrelevant. If you don't think so, please go to the nearest ghetto with a gun and attempt to enslave a black family there.. Please write back on your progress.

If you are able....

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes

Originally posted by solarjetman
1. Did you read the article I posted? It contains quotes from Patrick Henry himself, IN HIS OWN WORDS calling for state power to form militas in case of insurrection:

Henry then bluntly laid it out:
"If the country be invaded, a state may go to war, but cannot suppress [slave] insurrections [under this new Constitution]. If there should happen an insurrection of slaves, the country cannot be said to be invaded. They cannot, therefore, suppress it without the interposition of Congress . . . . Congress, and Congress only [under this new Constitution], can call forth the militia."

Please explain to me how a direct quote from a founding father addressing exactly what Glover was talking about is "utterly foolish and uneducated that has no basis in actual historical fact"?

2. The point is his acting ability has absolutely nothing to do with the content of his argument, and bringing it up is simply obfuscating the issues. It's nothing more than the adult version of calling someone a "stinky doodoo head."

3. "Playing the race card" implies crying wolf when there is none. Granted I too am sick of people crying racism at every little thing, given what I've read I'm convinced there actually could indeed be a wolf hidden in this case. Maybe the reason people are so tense in this thread is because the wolf is currently biting them in the ass.

Patrick Henry pointing out that people would not be allowed to defend themselves against an attack by revolting slaves doesn't mean that the 2'nd Amendment was written for that purpose. That is what Glover stated. What Henry was addressing was relevant to the times. At that time, slavery was a real part of daily life, and thus addressing potential problems with it was a valid concern. No one is stating that slavery was a good thing, but the slaves in America were certainly not the only people ever enslaved. People from every race, and from all over the world, have been slaves at one time or another throughout history. In the case of a slave insurrection, what would happen wasn't a move for freedom, but an attack on the slave owners, and on anyone else that wasn't a slave, with people being slaughtered. Defending against that would be something anyone living then should have been concerned with. None of that is relevant to the initial purpose of the 2'nd amendment.

Really??!? I mean.. are you serious? You are actually making Mr. Glover's point that the 2nd amendment gave whites the ability to "keep those negroes in line.."

The most basic interpretation of the Second Amendment at the time of its ratification:

There was no police force. People needed to protect themselves and the nation. This meant it was necessary for the population to be armed.

Slavery is not cited.

Glover is full of #.

reply to post by Obsrvr

Nice try but the facts are:

Important Dates in Law Enforcement

History Milestones in the History of the Profession
1600s
April 1635 The City of Boston establishes the first system of law enforcement in the 13 colonies. Called the "night watch," officers served part-time, without pay.

1700s

1712 The City of Boston hires the first full-time, paid law enforcement officers in the 13 colonies.

September 24, 1789 The United States Congress creates the first Federal law enforcement officer, the United States Marshal. Thirteen U.S. Marshals were appointed by President George Washington.

Milestones in Law Enforcement

Well having watched Predator 2 again the other night I think Mr. Glover would have been better off saying the 2nd amendment was created to defend ourselves from intergalactic trophy hunters.. Just saying.

reply to post by daskakik

Get real. Protection then was nothing like it is now.

reply to post by Obsrvr

I didn't say it was but to say that there was no police force is also untrue and therefore not proof that that is the reason for the second.

The white supremist ties to the NRA though is something that must be noted and has been discussed on this forum many many many times... The KKK and many supremist groups are donating funds to the NRA. Why so?

reply to post by daskakik

Are you posting to ring up points or something? We're talking about the end of the 18th century. Try thinking like an early American.

What were the conditions at the time? Who did what and when?

There was no 911. There were no phones. There was no telegraph. Outside of town you were on your own.

The military was in its youth. The FF's knew that the defense of the country had to be a joint venture with civilians.

Colonial Americans didn't sit on the settee and wait for the "police".

reply to post by Obsrvr

That is true but that doesn't make it the reason that the 2nd exists. People had arms before the Bill of Rights for those very same reasons. The question is who pushed for the inclusion of the 2nd and why?

ETA: The fact that Madison's original version was

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.

and in the ratified version "free country" has been changed to "free State" is a big hint towards answering that question.

If you've ever heard Glover talk on other subjects you'll realize he's addle minded.
Lethal Weapon is a trip to watch when you see two head cases as the stars.

reply to post by Asktheanimals


How could anyone take him seriously after all his slobbering over Chavez?

These celebrity rejects make me sick.