Actor and progressive political activist Danny Glover informed a group of students at a Texas A&M University-sponsored event that the Second Amendment was created to put down slave rebellions and subjugate Native Americans.

“I don’t know if you know the genesis of the right to bear arms,” Glover said on Thursday. “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 added.

That theory that the Second Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights to put down slave rebellions was recently resurrected by bestselling author and radio host Thom Hartmann, who said Virginia wouldn’t ratify the Constitution without a guarantee that it would have some way to keep slaves in check.

http://news.yahoo.com/lethal-weapon-actor-tells-students-second-amendment-intended-051717897.html

What do you think?

I'll take the founding father's words on it that it was necessary to keep government in check.

Glover is just a racist who see racism where there isn't any.

like this?




didn't Government pulled the same Stunt then as they are trying to now?

Danny Glover is an asshat!

Alhtough I dont believe its author had the intent, being he spoke out often about slavery, I do think that the amendment was probably appealing to those who wished to avoid rebellions of slaves

(considering, the term 'freeman' was often used and during that time slaves were not part of the collective 'americans' spoken of in the constitution)

the way republicans are appealing to racists and democrats are appealig to socialists

I suspect that enslaved europeans were made gradually 'white' , as well, to prevent organizing and rebelling with the enslaved africans,,,

Are you serious? The founding fathers among other came here to get away from taxation and they had to do it by force so when the constitution and bill of rights were written they knew first hand about government tyranny and therefore understood the need for the people to be able to defend themselves from an over zealous government hell bent on imposing rules that apply to the people, but the government.

I have a suspicion you probably also think that the civil war was solely about slavery and Lincoln cared about blacks.

in the same way rape is not 'solely' about sex,,,its about the power involved

than, no, the civil war was not 'solely' about slavery, it was about the power the slaveholders wanted to keep over their product

and Lincoln may or may not have 'cared' about slavery(Im not in his head), but he did do something to ACT upon ending it,,,,,

actually, founding fathers were american born, they didnt have to do anything by force,,,,


and the pilgrims before them FLED to america, also doing nothing by 'force'

The Founding Fathers were British Subjects!

another attempt to invalidate the 2nd Amendment!
And a very insidious one at that!

and,,,,,,,

most were BORN on this continent, not in Britain

Most of the delegates were natives of the 13 colonies. Only eight were born elsewhere: four (Butler, Fitzsimons, McHenry, and Paterson) in Ireland, two (Davie and Robert Morris) in England, one (Wilson) in Scotland, and one (Hamilton) in the West Indies.
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_founding_fathers_overview.html

Doesn't matter!
The 13 Colonies were British Colonies,therefore the Foundig Fathers were British Subjects,until the de Facto Independence of those Colonies!

thats lovely,,

whatever they were called

'The founding fathers among other came here to get away from taxation and they had to do it by force '


is still not a true statement, since there was nowhere for them to 'come' to,, being already born here

and therefore no force required of them either

Not so for the British colonies on many of the Caribbean islands, where Irish and Scottish slaves were usually worked to death for having dared to defend their homes and families in their former countries. The Brits kept their white slaves there until the 1860s.
Their slave policies makes it easier to understand why at one point they almost did intervene in the US civil war on the side of the Confederacy which would have meant an alliance with France(also with African colonies) as the French were also considering entering the war with the Confederate States ...but Mexico got in the way...

Mutual respect first everyone.
Regard that the 2nd amendment is a self-evident right just as the 1st. Interpretation aside, the 2nd amendment was intended to ensure that all other self-evident rights are defended.

Yes there was force and it was called the revolutionary war between the 13 colonies and Great Brittan at first, then became a world war with Brittan on one side and a young United States, France, Spain and Netherlands on the other. So what "no force required" are you referring to?

anything is possible... but what people are forgetting is that when the wrote the constitution, we were at war with at least 3 other nations and the indians...the easiest way to keep control of their land and expand west was to arm the people, so people could defend and serve i the military at the time... and not everyone was a slave owner... Danny Glover is obama whacko, so of course he will