Saturday, January 19, 2013
Danny Glover said WHAT???
Actor Danny Glover was invited to speak at Texas A&M. During his speech, he made some odd statements about a few different subjects. But the topic of the day seems to be about gun control lately, so Mr. Glover weighed in with the following:
"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,”
When I hear statements that seem outrageous, I start looking for sources. How did this person come up with that idea? So I started looking to see where Glover could possibly come up with this notion, after all, he doesn't just sit there and dream these things up himself does he?
To look for the "genesis", I thought it wise to look at the federalist papers. Federal Judges use the Federalist papers as a way to understand the intention of the framers of the Constitution. So that seems reasonable to go to the federalist papers.
In No. 28, the writer say that when a government amasses too much power and becomes tyrannical, the people have the right to self defense by fighting the tyrannical government.
No. 29 says that an armed citizenry is the best and only real defense against a standing army becoming large and oppressive.
No. 46 says that the ultimate authority resides in the people and that if the government got too powerful and overstepped it's authority, the people would develope plans and resort to arms.
It becomes clear that the "genesis" was not about protecting themselves from slave revolts, but rather about an oppressive government. Remember, those that wrote the Constitution had just fought and won for themselves freedom from one tyrannical government,
But what about slavery? Many from the south, fought against those in the north that wanted to eliminate slavery at the time of the Declaration of Independence. Slavery could have held us back from independence because of the southerners, even at the time of the revolution. So while we can claim that we gained independence, independence was not all inclusive in our Declaration because the slaves were left out. They were not considered people by enough of the Continental Congress. They were considered property. Since they weren't considered people, they were not considered citizens.
Property does not own nor possess firearms. I can't think of one person that goes out to buy a weapon for their plow horse to defend itself and unfortunately, the slaves were similar in stature to plow horses in those days.
The idea of slavery has always been a problem for this country. While the founding fathers had to give in and keep slavery to achieve the Declaration of Independence, and the slaves were considered property and not citizens, they contradict their own statements when they armed some of the slaves to fight in the revolution and granted them their freedom after a specified term of service.
Glover has it all wrong. The second amendment was about protecting from a tyrannical government. Any government can become tyrannical at some point.
If I take this a step further, why is Glover in favor of gun control? Imagine if the slaves were allowed to own guns from the time they first came here. Even if they were still slaves, eventually they would have taken arms up against the tyrannical government that held them in the bonds of slavery. Yes, even our founding fathers were tyrannical to a point because they allowed for slaves to remain slaves so that non slaves could attain their freedom.
After the success of the Colonies against King George, wouldn't the slaves then turn around and fight for the same independence from slavery against our new government had they been armed? Slavery could very well have been ended 82 years earlier than it was.
The second amendment was not about slavery. It was and is about the people protecting themselves from a tyrannical government. Danny Glover could make a case that George Washington, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson were tyrannical over the slaves, despite that all three were in favor of freeing slaves.
Glovers own argument, false as it is, should have him in favor of the second amendment, not creating falsehoods to justify President Obama and the others in government trying to confiscate guns.
You're welcome to comment.
Posted by Brett at Saturday, January 19, 2013