There was substantial opposition to the new Constitution, because it moved the power to arm the state militias from the states to the federal government. This created a fear that the federal government, by neglecting the upkeep of the militia, could have overwhelming military force at its disposal through its power to maintain a standing army and navy, leading to a confrontation with the states, encroaching on the states' reserved powers and even engaging in a military takeover.

A foundation of American political thought during the Revolutionary period was the well justified concern about political corruption and governmental tyranny. Even the federalists, fending off their opponents who accused them of creating an oppressive regime, were careful to acknowledge the risks of tyranny. Against that backdrop, the framers saw the personal right to bear arms as a potential check against tyranny. Theodore Sedgwick of Massachusetts expressed this sentiment by declaring that it is "a chimerical idea to suppose that a country like this could ever be enslaved . . . Is it possible . . . that an army could be raised for the purpose of enslaving themselves or their brethren? or, if raised whether they could subdue a nation of freemen, who know how to prize liberty and who have arms in their hands?"[81][82] Noah Webster similarly argued:

Before a standing army can rule the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.[82][83]

George Mason argued the importance of the militia and right to bear arms by reminding his compatriots of England's efforts "to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them . . . by totally disusing and neglecting the militia." He also clarified that under prevailing practice the militia included all people, rich and poor. "Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." Because all were members of the militia, all enjoyed the right to individually bear arms to serve therein.[82][84]

The framers thought the personal right to bear arms to be a paramount right by which other rights could be protected. Therefore, writing after the ratification of the Constitution, but before the election of the first Congress, James Monroe included "the right to keep and bear arms" in a list of basic "human rights", which he proposed to be added to the Constitution.[82][85]

Patrick Henry, in the Virginia ratification convention June 5, 1788, argued for the dual rights to arms and resistance to oppression:

Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.[86]

While both Monroe and Adams supported ratification of the Constitution, its most influential framer was James Madison. In Federalist No. 46, he confidently contrasted the federal government of the United States to the European kingdoms, which he contemptuously described as "afraid to trust the people with arms." He assured his fellow citizens that they need never fear their government because of "the advantage of being armed...."[82][87]

=-=-=-=-=

There was no discussion of slaves or slavery with respect to the 2nd Amendment at the time of its drafting but there are numerous discussions concerning the need to be able to forcibly protect citizens and states against potential federal tyranny.

I think this pretty much discredits the viewpoint exhorted by Glover. Consideration of slaves and Indians had little or nothing to do with the creation 2nd amendment and it is intellectually dishonest to try to inject these considerations a couple of centuries after the fact as a matter of weapon baiting incitement. I am disappointed in Glover for this lapse in critical thinking.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2nd_amendment

it was not 'created' because of slaves, at least not by Madison,,,,

but it certainly APPEALED to those who wanted to protect against a slave revolt

Well I'm sure that the Southern slave owners wanted their guns.
And arming African Americans was soon to become a wild and
contentious subject about 50 years later...

But it bothers me that Glover and Hartmann can be so ignorant in
their comments!

Glover 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 added.

I mean that is just ignorant. This was NOT the genesis of the
Amendment and protection from slave uprisings or Indian uprisings
was NOT where the 2nd Amendment came from.

According to later reports, Texas A&M campus officials have already begun to distance themselves from Glover’s comments.

There is never any good excuse for poor scholarship and false commentary regarding the Constitution and Amendments....

Sorry about the multiple posts (Site Gag)