Big ‘B’ found this interesting article from 2013;

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.

Little did Madison realize that one day in the future weapons-manufacturing corporations, newly defined as “persons” by a Supreme Court some have called dysfunctional, would use his slave patrol militia amendment to protect their “right” to manufacture and sell assault weapons used to murder schoolchildren.

If congress was to actually uphold the true meaning of the 2nd Amendment, none of us would have guns, except cops and the military.

11 Thoughts on “Thom Hartmann: The Second Amendment Was Ratified to Preserve Slavery

  1. SSSSTTTTTRRRRRREEEEEETTTTTCCCCHHHHHHing the facts to make your reasoning work is childish.

    My four year old tells tall tales too.

  2. Teatime on July 24, 2016 at 12:14 am said:

    Source of the “article” and the author and the author’s sources?

  3. The D@ily Spin on July 24, 2016 at 11:33 am said:

    Wait a minute. If guns outlawed, no bikini girls shooting machine gun videos. Badlands pawn couldn’t make it. No more road rage shootouts. Casino robberies would be with grape juice squirt guns. No more drive by shootings before and after July 4th. Life gets boring. What will be in the news. You can’t double your money reselling guns in Mexico. There goes our economy and our culture.

  4. l3wis on July 24, 2016 at 2:55 pm said:

    Thom is one of the leading progressive authors and radio hosts in the country. You have probably never heard of him because we have NO progressive talk shows on local radio.

  5. duggersd on July 24, 2016 at 4:11 pm said:

    Perhaps another view on this is appropriate. This is also a left-leaning author who believes Hartmann is all wet and making stuff up.
    The following is me. The name of our country is the United States of America. At the time, each state was considered sovereign. In my understanding, until the American Civil War, people thought of themselves a citizen of their individual states. Even today, the word “state” can be substituted for “country”. Check out the organization called “ISIS”.
    As for no progressive talk shows on local radio, perhaps the reason there are none is because when there were, nobody listened?

  6. We’ve met Thomm a couple of times in Minneapolis. An amazing speaker and author.

    Blue State Ball, 2015 –

    Minnesota Blue Ball 2016 memories –

    I have followed him and his writings for over 12 years and respect his work.

  7. duggersd on July 24, 2016 at 6:50 pm said:

    Here is another article about what is real.
    It is interesting that Hartman bases his thesis upon a book written by a guy named Bogus. At the time of the writing of his book, Bogus’ thesis was pretty much shown to be bogus. If this is an example of Thom Hartman’s work, I can understand why he does not have much of a following. It sounds like he bases his arguments on fiction.

  8. l3wis on July 24, 2016 at 7:29 pm said:

    Dugger, I actually support legal gun ownership, always have. I just don’t support stupid 2nd amendment arguments. Like driving car I actually think that gun owners should have to take a written test and operating test on how to use ALL of the guns they own. Ironically most legal gun owners agree when polled about the gun test. Like a car, a gun is a deadly weapon when not used properly.

  9. duggersd on July 24, 2016 at 7:38 pm said:

    I am not saying anything about what you believe. I am only pointing out this Hartman character’s arguments are bogus. As for what you believe you need in order to have a gun, that is for another debate. BTW, based upon the text of the 2nd amendment, it does not say the government will allow people to have a gun. It says the government cannot infringe upon the right of the people to own a gun. What you are talking about requires a change in the amendment. A car is not addressed in the Constitution. Let’s compare apples to apples.

  10. John Kennedy Claussen, Sr. on July 24, 2016 at 11:47 pm said:

    Perhaps, this may help us in the debate over guns:

    Let us not forget, that when the 2nd Amendment was penned, we were a young, vulnerable, and weak nation without a standing army, and dependent upon a decentralized state militia system to afford national security.

    However, today we are a strong nation with a standing army and over 200 years of stare decisis decisions by the US Supreme Court, which, prior to the 2008 Heller case, never recognized ones right to own a gun. It was only with the pro-gun Heller decision through the help, ironically, of conservative Justices in a 5 to 4 opinion, that the Supreme Court offered an opinion of conservative judicial activism, which was totally at odds with prior gun decisions and those decisions consistency with the “original intent” of the authors and framers of the Bill of Rights when it comes to the 2nd Amendment – a concept, “original intent,” which is often cherished by those of the right who are the same ones who are also most often the leaders in asserting gun rights. I guess when it comes to gun rights, the legal argument of “original intent” then loses it value and judicial activism, a concept often considered or claimed to be the legal fiat of the left, becomes then the instrument of opportunist choice for the right and its gun owners.

    Now, in the context of gun decisions over the years, the willingness of the left to now cling to the virtues of “original intent” on this issue is not itself a political or legal contradiction or opportunism as well, because stare decisis decisions over the years, actually 200 years prior to Heller, have maintained and legitimize such intent itself, with or without the help of the left and without the appearance of any mere modern day act of legal opportunism, unlike the Heller case and the NRA’s modern day political narrative on the meaning of the 2nd Amendment, however, which are totally dependent upon judicial activism ironically of a right bent.

  11. Warren_Phear on July 25, 2016 at 7:31 am said:

    Conservative talk shows? Why does rush limbow make 400 million for an eight year contract? Where does this kind of money come from? Advertisors to the show? No. Advertisers are running fron rush like plaque. No, right wing radio hacks are whores….whores to the highest dollar.

Post Navigation