EDIT: Folks, I have made a grave error in this article and would like to correct that error right now. I have made allegations against Clayton Cramer that are patently false and have done so in the most contemptible (to me) manner--by not actually reading the article to which I linked.It will never stop and the lies will never stop.
Far from purveying the lies that Danny Glover and his ilk have put forward, Mr. Cramer has been asserting the opposite, that gun control legislation has it's roots in racism. I apologize most profusely to Mr. Cramer and beg his forgiveness for this unacceptable failure on my part. I also beg the forgiveness of my readers for misstating the facts and leaving a false impression. I have edited my article to reflect the truth.
It is to my shame that I have done so and my only excuse is no excuse at all, my own intellectual laziness. It has always been my most earnest desire to bring you only factual information and thus when I do make this kind of error, I have broken my contract to you, the reader. On the very rare occasion that something like this happens and it is brought to my attention--or, as in this case, by self-discovery, I will make it known to you in no uncertain terms. Unlike most MSM news organizations, you will not find my admission buried deep in the article or on some back page, but forthrightly here at the top.,
On the 17th, well known leftist agitator and actor, Danny Glover, was invited to speak at Texas A&M University. Among the many things he said, was the assertion that the origin of the Second Amendment was to protect citizens from "slave revolts and uprisings by Native Americans." Yep, the Second Amendment was intended to help keep the black man down.
Go ahead, laugh if you want, I did at first, but I guarantee you that this will soon become one of the narratives being promulgated by those on the left who wish to strip us of our inherent right to keep and bear arms.
This from CampusReform.org:
Folks, this is not new, but the push to promote the lie is. Thom Hartman wrote an equally pathetic assertion of what Mr. Glover claimed in Truthout. It really is one of the worst pieces of "journalism" I have come across, but it does support my claim that this is the new argument.
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.
“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.
The real reason the Second Amendment was ratified, and why it says "State" instead of "Country" (the Framers knew the difference - see the 10th Amendment), was to preserve the slave patrol militias in the southern states, which was necessary to get Virginia's vote. Founders Patrick Henry, George Mason, and James Madison were totally clear on that . . . and we all should be too.
In the beginning, there were the militias. In the South, they were also called the "slave patrols," and they were regulated by the states.
Hartman's arguments a even more pathetic, as the examples he uses actually support the opposite thesis, that as Clayton Cramer asserts, it is gun control that is sourced in racism--the effort to disarm slaves and prevent them from possessing or obtaining arms.
These false allegations are a serious, malevolent threat to our freedoms and our rights.
The Second Amendment is not ambiguous it is, like all the other amendments, an imperative. The wording ". . . shall not be infringed." is not conditional, it does not imply possibility, it is an absolute and if you read the writings of the Framers, it was never intended to be conditional.
The Second Amendment, like all the others in the Bill Of Rights, is grounded not in some mythical desire on the part of the colonials to protect themselves from slaves rioting or "Native Americans" from uprising, it's roots far precede either of those and indeed the colonies themselves.
Those rights, the rights which Thomas Jefferson described as "endowed by our creator" find their origins in English Common Law and in the belief of the founders that each man had an inherent right to self-protection and to self-determination. They are self-evident and follow logically from our existence as children of God who are given free will and the right to live as free men.
I am reminded of something I heard Ted Nugent say in an interview with the editor of Texas Monthly, Evan Smith:
"The Second Amendment is so obvious to me, it's insane that there's an argument.
"Let's pretend there is no document. Let's pretend brave families didn't leave the tyrants and the slave-drivers of Europe so that they could practice the religion of their choice, that they could speak out without being murdered, that they could produce wool without the kings' men coming and taking it from them every season of harvest. Let's pretend none of that happened. Let's just pretend this guy named Ted Nugent parachuted onto earth and woke up one morning and saw all these wonderful resources and had dreams of excellence and being the best that [he] could be.
"I don't need the document, and don't need another man to explain to me that I have the right to defend my gift of life. And that there's an argument in America...from Hillary Clinton, from Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein, from a whole gaggle of numb-nuts who would try to tell me they will dictate where, how, and if...I can defend myself. I find that preposterous. I find it unacceptable, and I will not accept it.
As I stated in my previous rant on the Right To Keep And Bear Arms, this right is so inherently obvious that Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist No. 84, argues against having a Bill Of Rights on the premise that to have such an explicit list of rights implies that government has the power to take those rights so protected."I am a free man. Don't tread on me! A good law-abiding citizen, not convicted of a felony, the Second Amendment of our Bill of Rights is my concealed weapons permit. Period!"
". . . I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?
Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power.
They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government . . ." [my emphasis]". . . men disposed to usurp . . ." Sound like anyone you know? Do you think maybe Mayor Bloomberg is a "man disposed to usurp?" How about Chuck Schumer, or Andrew Cuomo (who rushed his state's new restrictive gun laws through the legislature as quickly as he could so that his citizens would not be able to run to the gun store before the law was enacted), think maybe they are men "disposed to usurp?"
I think people like Bloomberg, Cuomo, Schumer, Feinstein, Obama and all of the rest of the usual suspects are people who are not simply "disposed to usurp," but who are eager to usurp, eager to insinuate themselves and their authority into every aspect of the lives of the very people they were elected to serve . . . for our own good, of course.
History is clear and the rights self-evident as are the reasons for those rights, but if men like Danny Glover
If thirty rounds are too much--or twenty--then who is to say that 10 rounds aren't too much. Andrew Cuomo and the New York State Legislature (Leftistlature) have already enshrined this very belief into law and instituted a seven-round limit. Will we see this lowered further still? Will revolvers soon be reclassified as "assault weapons?"
Will those who scoff at gun owners when they describe these laws as the beginning of "a slippery slope" now stop and look at what occurred in New York and say, "I guess they're not so crazy, it is a slippery slope," or will they blithely (and dishonestly) continue to assert that gun owners are chasing will-o-wisps?
I am certain it will be the latter. I do not expect those "reasonable Republicans" to reevaluate their initial assertions and now take up our argument. I expect those, like Joe Scarborough (former Representative and now co-host of MSNBC's Morning Joe), former Secretary of State Colon Powell, and Michael Steel (former RNC Chairman) to continue to sneer at the "extremists" in the NRA who are "destroying" the Republican Party. I expect them to continue to assert that "hunters have nothing to fear" in their continued fundamental lack of understanding of what the Second Amendment is all about and why it was included in our Bill of Rights.
What is becoming readily apparent is that we have an ever-widening schism developing in our nation. There is a growing division between rural communities and urban communities. They hold glaringly different visions of what this nation should be.
There is an ever widening chasm between those who desire liberty and freedom and. those who desire the illusion of safety offered by these cosmetic, but ineffectual, changes of law; between those who breathe the free air of liberty and bear responsibility for their own security (as our Founding Fathers intended) and those who cower in fear in their citadels of glass and steel, hoping beyond hope that the police will arrive before the criminals kill or rape them.
Whatever happens over the next few months, one thing is certain; the anti-gun forces will not be satisfied. They will not give up, they will not relent, they will not tire, and they will not go away. We are now engaged in a battle for the survival of our nation and our culture and it is a battle we dare not lose, for the sake of our children and our children's children.
The urge to dominate, to control, and dictate is as old as mankind and if history tells us anything, it is that government abhors a vacuum and that, as many patriots in the past have said (perhaps even Thomas Jefferson): "Eternal vigilance is the price for freedom."
The battle for liberty is an eternal battle. I give you three quotes from three sources, all well after our victory over Britain.
". . . it is an adage, that 'what has happened once, may happen again.' Someone has justly remarked, that 'eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.' Let the sentinels in the towers sleep not, and slumber not."These admonitions stand as relevant today as they were 175 years ago. Let freedom ring. Let your elected representatives know how you feel and let them know repeatedly. Liberals don't just write once and then forget it, they persist, they pester, they agitate and they persevere. If we are to win this battle, we must do the same.
--Virginia Free Press and Farmers Repository, May 2, 1833
"Decendents of Ethan Alen, prove yourselves worthy of your ancient prowess--gird on the armor of Equal Right and be prepared to vindicate the faith of your revolutionary fathers, the principles of the immortal Jefferson, in the momentous contest which is waging. 'Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.' Your safety lies in prompt and efficient ACTION, ORGANIZATION AND PERSEVERANCE."
--Vermont Patriot and State Gazette, March 21, 1836
"The world, however, is no better at this late period, than it was in former times when traitors darkened its annals; and, as in the language of Jefferson, 'eternal vigilance is the price of liberty'--we cannot be too careful in guarding and preserving the glorious inheritance left to us."
--Pennsylvania Inquirer and Daily Courier, January 4, 1838
We must educate our neighbors and friends, we must counter the lies they have been told and that they hear repeated endlessly by the MSM.
Long Live Our American Republic!!!!