Posted in: Celebrity News

Danny Glover’s Second Amendment History Lesson Enrages Conservative Students, Petition Launched

Danny Glover Angers Conservative Students Over Second Amendment Talk

Danny Glover’s take on the Second Amendment has put him in the crosshairs of a group of conservative students.

During a January 17 appearance by the actor at Texas A&M University for a breakfast to honor Dr. Martin Luther King, all was going well until talk turned to the Second Amendment.

Glover told the assembled students that Second Amendment — the right to bear arms — was created to protect against slave revolts and secure Native American land, the Huffington Post reports.

“I don’t know if you know the genesis of the right to bear arms,” Glover began.

He added:

“The Second Amendment comes from the right to protect themselves from slave revolts, and from uprisings by Native Americans. So, 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.”

An almighty row resulted when a conservative student group took exception to the actor’s words. The group — the Texas Aggie Conservatives — have now launched a petition against Texas A&M for supposedly hosting “radical leftist speakers” who promote “leftist bias” and using school monies to do so.

The group also posted a video of Glover online.

According to the New York Daily News, Eric Schroeder, chairman of TAC, told the Conservative online activist group Campus Reform that the incident was “outrageous,” adding, “”It should be a time for real reflection and respect, instead the University pushes a political agenda.”

For their part, Texas A&M officials say they didn’t know that Glover was going to talk about the Second Amendment.

“I had no idea, we really didn’t know that topic was coming up,” the director of Texas A&M’s Memorial Student Center, Luke Altendorf, told Campus Reform. “Someone was asking a question about activism, I think that’s where some of that came from.”

Interestingly, some constitutional experts agree with Glover.

Author and radio personality Thom Hartmann, writing for Truth-Out.org, has talked about how the origin of the Second Amendment’s was to “preserve the slave patrol militias in the southern states, which was necessary to get Virginia’s vote.”

And in a 2008, Mother Jones reporter Stephanie Mencimer wrote:

“[Some] scholars believe the founders enshrined the right to bear arms in the Constitution in part to enforce tyranny, not fight it,” adding that “the ‘well-regulated militias’ cited in the Constitution almost certainly referred to state militias that were used to suppress slave insurrections.”

It seems the Danny Glover Second Amendment debate will rumble on for a while yet.

Articles And Offers From The Web

Comments

9 Responses to “Danny Glover’s Second Amendment History Lesson Enrages Conservative Students, Petition Launched”

  1. Brian Martin

    I am agree with those that called a lib a lib and is partitioning to have school monies not spent on leftist agendas. Hera hera!

  2. Brian Martin

    Lets not forget that it was black africans that in-slaved there own people and sold there own people to the slave traders. If you deny me you are a hypocrite.

  3. Brian Martin

    Ok Danny Glover lets see if you feel safe walking down some Chicago ally ways or ghettos and find out if you feel safe. I am certain you have and carry a gun permit. Its ok for you to have one because you are better than me right? When you turn in your guns is when hell will freeze over so why should I?

  4. Tim Carroll

    if you google george mason and the second amendment you can see exactly what was meant by well regulated militia and as he co-wrote it he should know.

  5. Spencer Carpenter

    This 'theory' has been been completely debunked.

    The central tenet that the Second was only ratified to support slave patrols ignores that fact that the non-slave states endorsed it as well.

    In fact the entire Constitution, and later the Bill of Rights (containing the Second Amendment) was passed unanimously.

    This is aside from the fact that the men who supposedly colluded on this all hated each other, and at least two weren't even members of Congress when they whittled the 40 proposed amendments down to the 10 we have today.

    Last but not least, slave patrols were not militia but police. They would be as legally justified to be armed as any other constable or sheriff.

    The entire point of this is simply to attack the moral roots of the Second Amendment.

    It didn't work.

  6. David Schneider

    Not denying you at all. But how did they enforce their control over their slaves? That's right, Brian, you got it.

  7. David Schneider

    This is a complex topic. But it's clear from the historical record of debates between Madison and Patrick Henry that the Constitution and Bill of Rights were only achieved through a profound and sometimes troubling compromise between two sets of problems that constituted late 18th-century reality. First, we needed to preserve the union – and do so more strongly than the articles of Confederation – because our military superiority only came through a unified strength. However the Framers profoundly wrestled with the idea of a nation that called itself free while permitting slavery. And there were lots of questions: could slaves have a philosophical justification for revolt under the statutes? And how could the US safeguard itself against tumult from within as well as without? And, guess what, it turns out that a "free state" as mentioned in the 2nd Amendment is a nice bit of political euphemism: through an Originalist interpretation of the Constitution (such as Scalia finds himself fond of) a "free state" is one that has the freedom to permit slavery within it.

  8. Brian Wolfe

    "If you deny me you are a hypocrite."

    "I'm shooting off my mouth and preemptively trying to shame people with functioning brains who'll inevitably point out the idiocy in my argument."

    Fixed that for you.