Danny Glover tells students Second Amendment was created to protect slavery

reply to post by sensible1


I think you need a new ATS nickname based on that last post. I don't know why you just don't get it, just because a very few people might have supported ratification of the 2nd amendment because of they felt protection was needed from "bands of armed ex-slaves" does not have any relation to the intent and purpose of the amendment.

I know an old lady who keeps a loaded shotgun to defend herself from Alien invasion and NASA black ops teams. Based on your logic we could say "the real purpose of the 2nd amendment is to protect ourselves from ET and NASA". I hope that helps clarify the difference.

Glover and anyone else claiming the 2nd amendment's purpose was for slavery is distorting facts, no different than the example I've just given you except in that case the fringe minority were various State assembly members and slave state politicians. What they may or may not have valued the amendment for has no relation what so ever to the founders who wrote it and their intentions.

Originally posted by ecoparity
reply to post by sensible1

 

just because a very few people might have supported ratification of the 2nd amendment because of they felt protection was needed from "bands of armed ex-slaves" does not have any relation to the intent and purpose of the amendment.

But it does have a relation to the way the original was edited as a concession of its original intent and purpose.

Glover and anyone else claiming the 2nd amendment's purpose was for slavery is distorting facts

Not distorting the facts but spinning them to fit their agenda. As someone pointed out earlier, it was a valid issue back then so it was something that was compromised on. It could have ended up like the ten amendments that were stricken from the original proposal, like this gem that would have made a big difference on the present state of the US:

That the people have an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to reform or change their government, whenever it be found adverse or inadequate to the purposes of its institution.

Thinking that all the FFs were different than politicians today is naive.

Of course, not all Hollywood celebrities are opposed to the Second Amendment.



OK, I just happen to like this little number and I was looking for an excuse to post it Enjoy.

reply to post by VictorVonDoom

Ah, the good old days. Guns everywhere and no one went around shooting up the place.

Guns are not the problem. People are the problem.

Ban people.

And thanks for posting that video in my thread. I love Sammy (and the rest of The Pack).

reply to post by daskakik


Please post the evidence that the language of the 2nd amendment was "edited" at all, let alone to fit the agenda of pro slavery state assembly members. I'd love to see it.

One of the distortions of fact these folks keep making is ignoring the fact that quite a few years passed between the time the 2nd amendment was written and when it was debated in the a few states in relation to slavery issues. That's kind of the entire point - how that right is used or debated after the fact has NOTHING to do with it's creation or intention.

These people are claiming the INTENT and PURPOSE of the 2nd amendment was for slavery. This is false, a lie and a distortion of both history and fact.

Danny Glover is an idiot. The first large scale gun control laws in the US were part of the "jim Crow" laws to keep freed slaves intimidated and under control. It is much more easier to burn a cross in someone's yard if they are not shooting at you.

Originally posted by daskakik

Originally posted by ecoparity
reply to post by sensible1

 

just because a very few people might have supported ratification of the 2nd amendment because of they felt protection was needed from "bands of armed ex-slaves" does not have any relation to the intent and purpose of the amendment.

But it does have a relation to the way the original was edited as a concession of its original intent and purpose.

Glover and anyone else claiming the 2nd amendment's purpose was for slavery is distorting facts

Not distorting the facts but spinning them to fit their agenda. As someone pointed out earlier, it was a valid issue back then so it was something that was compromised on. It could have ended up like the ten amendments that were stricken from the original proposal, like this gem that would have made a big difference on the present state of the US:

That the people have an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to reform or change their government, whenever it be found adverse or inadequate to the purposes of its institution.

Thinking that all the FFs were different than politicians today is naive.

edit on 22-1-2013 by daskakik because: (no reason given)

"Valid issue back then?" Please point out the marauding bands of ex-slaves in 1791.

Originally posted by solarjetman

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes

Originally posted by solarjetman
This thread is boring... why is everyone attacking Glover for his acting ability and/or movie credits? Calling the man stupid doesn't do anybody favors. I've never heard this perspective before today, and while I wouldn't be so bold as to declare I know this is the absolute truth, I would rather engage in intelligent dialogue about the CONTENT of the argument rather than vapid ad hominems and straw men. I've heard the "last defense against tyranny" argument a million times-- can anyone chime in on an alternative perspective without griping about "the race card" or anything else that makes you uncomfortable?

Here's a link that further breaks down where Glover was coming from...

P.S. I know some of you are constructively contributing, so I will say I appreciate that.

People are addressing his utterly foolish and uneducated statement, that has no basis in actual historical fact. Some have commented on his acting as well. As for that, well, it isn't really that good. The Lethal Weapon series was a success because of Mel Gibson. Pretty much anyone could have played Murtaugh, and some could have done a far better job. His lines are pretty stilted in places. Example: the comment to his wife, when he's on the boat, and she is fussing because he didn't take the trash out. Stilted, and not natural-sounding at all. I love those movies, and have always thought that.

Plus, his comments WERE "playing the race card". He's basically saying that the only reason Americans have a right to guns is to oppress black people, which is utter nonsense, and frankly, geared to inflame racial tensions. He ought to be ashamed.

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's quote had absolutely nothing to do with Mr Glover's conclusions, in fact, it seems that Patrick Henry is saying exactly the opposite when he says that only Congress should supress an insurrection. (Also note that "slave" was in parentheses, indicating that it was not part of Mr Henry's words but inferred and placed there by the person who wrote the article.

reply to post by ecoparity

Here is the proposal by Madison. It specifies the security and regulation of the militia to the "country". The states wanted control over the militias and enough has been posted about the use by some states of these as slave patrols and so the phrase "free country" was changed to "free state" which allows for a different interpretation.

The history and fact is that the original intent and purpose was changed by congress to get the amendment ratified. The whole second clause was stricken. Obviously its original intent and purpose were changed.

reply to post by NavyDoc

It was brought up as an issue by the representatives of the southern states. It was valid enough for them to bring it up, for whatever reason.

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by ecoparity

 

Here is the proposal by Madison. It specifies the security and regulation of the militia to the "country". The states wanted control over the militias and enough has been posted about the use by some states of these as slave patrols and so the phrase "free country" was changed to "free state" which allows for a different interpretation.

The history and fact is that the original intent and purpose was changed by congress to get the amendment ratified. The whole second clause was stricken. Obviously its original intent and purpose were changed.

ANd Madison's original verbage in your link said nothing about "slave patrols" but mentioned that people with religious objection to bearing arms should not be forced to serve in the military--which has nothing to do with Glover's pemise.

reply to post by NavyDoc

Right but in order to get the amendment ratified a concession was made. The reason given was domestic insurrection. One of the activities of the state militias was as slave patrols. Here you will find a larger portion of that Patrick Henry quote which shows that he did have slave insurrections in mind and that he wanted the control of the militias to be changed from the federal government, as proposed, to the states:

Mr. Chairman, I will turn to another clause, which relates to the same subject, and tends to show the fallacy of their argument. The tenth section of the first article, to which reference was made by the worthy member, militates against himself. It says, that " no State shall engage in war, unless actually invaded." If you give this clause a fair construction, what is the true meaning of it ? What does this relate to ? Not domestic insurrections, but war. If the country be invaded, a State may go to war, but cannot suppress insurrections. 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. The fourth section of the fourth article expressly directs that in case of domestic violence Congress shall protect the States on application of the legislature or executive ; and the eighth section of the first article gives Congress power to call forth the militia to quell insurrections. There can not therefore be a concurrent power. The State legislatures ought to have power to call forth the efforts of militia when necessary. Occasions for calling them out may be urgent, pressing, and instantaneous. The States cannot now call them, let an insurrection be ever so perilous, without an application to Congress. So long a delay may be fatal.

You need to check in with your anti 2nd amendment team cause you're off the program considerably.

The discussion and debates surrounding the formation of the Constitution had zero discussion regarding slaves and the 2nd amendment.

The quotes they like to use to try and justify this are actually from 18 to 20 years LATER, when abolitionists and freed slaves actually WERE an issue but the 2nd amendment was passed and already ratified by that time, hence the PURPOSE and INTENT of the amendment were not for SLAVERY, the very claim Glover and his anti gun left wing buddies are trying to make.

The only real mention of the issue of slavery and the 2nd amendment was among a few state assembly members during the ratification (which was AFTER the creation of the amendment) and most of that discussion actually centered about the opposite of what Glover is saying. A few pro slavery people made comments but so did anti slavery people - neither have anything to do with the purpose and intent of the amendment.

The 2nd amendment has never been edited, the discussions of the constitutional congress were PRE creation and ratification and you will not find one quote regarding slavery in those discussions when the 2nd amendment was the subject.

Most of the quotes used as examples by these revisionists are actually from the 14th amendment ratification which took place quite a very long time later.

reply to post by ecoparity

I have already posted the amendment as proposed by Madison and the one ratified and pointed out the differences. I can't make it any clearer.

Nobody said that slavery was ever mention in the proposed amendment. What is said is that slavery was one of the reason for changing the amendment as proposed by Madison.

You can say that it was never Madison's intent. Fine but whatever his intent was was null and void by the time the edited amendment was passed and it was that intent and purpose that was made law and not Madison's.

ETA: and the quote above your post is from the Constitutional Convention and not years after as you claim.

reply to post by daskakik


You keep dancing around the facts.

The 2nd amendment was not created to support slavery. Glover is wrong and you are wrong, period.

Nice try but not everyone is ignorant of history and ripe for manipulation.

reply to post by ecoparity

I never said it was created to support slavery. My position is quite clear, that the second was edited and allowed to pass as a concession to the southern states who used it in support of slavery and the facts support that. Instead of rebutting those facts, you choose to go with "because I say so".

Originally posted by sensible1
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.."

No, I am saying that defending your life isn't the same as "keeping someone in line". Don't be obtuse.

Glover is trying to play the race card to excuse stealing freedom from people. If you can't see that, you are blind.