Bang / Guns
See other Bang / Guns Articles
Title: Actor Danny Glover Tells Students 2nd Amendment Was Created To Protect Slavery (Video)
Source:
Campus Reform
URL Source: http://www.campusreform.org/blog/?ID=4582
Published: Jan 18, 2013
Author: Timothy Dionisopoulos
Post Date: 2013-01-18 20:56:29 by Murron
Keywords: None
Views: 11458
Comments: 24
Actor Danny Glover Tells Students 2nd Amendment Was Created To Protect Slavery (Video) 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. Glover, best known for roles in the “Lethal Weapon” franchise and “Angels in the Outfield,” was addressing students at an event being held in honor of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Director of Texas A&M’s Memorial Student Center, Luke Altendorf, told Campus Reform on Friday that the university was unaware of Glover’ talking points prior to his speech. “I had no idea, we really didn’t know that topic was coming up,” he told Campus Reform. “Someone was asking a question about activism, I think that’s where some of that came from.” Altendorf declined to say if, or how much the school had paid for Glover’s speech, but said student fees were not used. WATCH: Danny Glover says the Second Amendment was crafted by America's founding fathers to protect slavery In the past, however, the university paid Angela Davis and Harry Belafonte $25,000 for their speeches at the same event. Altendorf also defended the school’s decision to host those controversial speakers with university resources. “We didn’t feel those speakers you are referring to are bad decisions on these topics because we want to foster discussion,” he said. The video recording of the event was captured by members of a student group, the Texas Aggie Conservatives (TAC). That group has also created an online petition blasting Texas A&M for its speaker selections. Eric Schroeder, chairman of the conservative group, called the event “outrageous.” “It should be a time for real reflection and respect,” he said referring to the memorial breakfast for King. “Instead, the university pushes a political agenda.” Schroeder also called on university President Bowen Loftin to make up for the event by inviting a conservative speaker of equal star power. “We expect President Loftin to stand by his commitment to diversity and fully support our efforts to bring in a conservative speaker to provide an alternative to Mr. Glover’s far left message” said Schroeder.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 2.
#1. To: All (#0)
Hear! Hear! Spoken like a true, ignorant, obedient plantation field hand that you are, Glover! And I'm sure the surpreme socialist house-nigga you worship, surrounded by 'ARMED WHITE MEN', protecting his cowardly narcissistic ass would agree with you. Heads up, Glover! Our First Amendment says, 'the right of the people', nowhere did it mention the words, 'the right of the white man'! As a 'FREE' black American who's taken advantage of all this nation has to offer you in achieving all your own hopes and dreams of the future, one would think you would take a more serious look at yourself, before you dare snatch one single liberty or freedom from another man, and come to the realization that this nonsensical embrace of plantation charlatan practices by Obama and the traitors he surrounds himself with, is a death sentence for the future of your children, not just the white children you seem to nurse grievences against. Chew on this, einstein! Once you succeed in disarming 'all men' of this nation, not just the white man, what is to stop a purely evil 'white klansman' sitting in the white house from turning back the clock and taking away everything the black man fought for, bled for, and died for? Maybe you and your black bratha's and sista's could congregate together (if you still have that right) and sing a chorus or two of 'Go Down Moses", march in the streets and wave your protest signs demanding your right to be treated equally, and pray they don't beat the dog-shit out of you or your loved ones, or shoot them dead where they march? Why not, it worked the first time, right? Yeah, that'll do it! I believe that if your decendents are as ignorant, racist and foolish as you are, Glover, then your people have no future, and they will have you and the house-niggas they worshiped to thank for their chains you helped forge. jmho!
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Second Amendment - Bearing Arms (The case #below# overturned the District’s law banning virtually all handguns# Supreme Court Decision: McDonald v# Chicago Document HERE 2nd Amendment Annotations Prior to the Supreme Court's 2008 decision in District of Columbia v# Heller, the courts had yet to definitively state what right the Second Amendment protected# The opposing theories, perhaps oversimplified, were #1# an "individual rights" approach, whereby the Amendment protected individuals' rights to firearm ownership, possession, and transportation; and #2# a "states' rights" approach, under which the Amendment only protected the right to keep and bear arms in connection with organized state militia units# Moreover, it was generally believed that the Amendment was only a bar to federal action, not to state or municipal restraints# However, the Supreme Court has now definitively held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that weapon for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home# Moreover, this right applies not just to the federal government, but to states and municipalities as well# In Heller, the Court held that #1# the District of Columbia's total ban on handgun possession in the home amounted to a prohibition on an entire class of "arms" that Americans overwhelmingly chose for the lawful purpose of self- defense, and thus violated the Second Amendment; and #2# the District's requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock also violated the Second Amendment, because the law made it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense# The Court reasoned that the Amendment's prefatory clause, i#e#, "a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," announced the Amendment's purpose, but did not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause, i#e#, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed#" Moreover, the prefatory clause's history comported with the Court's interpretation, because the prefatory clause stemmed from the Anti-Federalists' concern that the federal government would disarm the people in order to disable the citizens' militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule# Further, the Court distinguished United States v#Miller, in which the Court upheld a statute requiring registration under the National Firearms Act of sawed-off shotguns, on the ground that Miller limited the type of weapon to which the Second Amendment right applied to those in common use for lawful purposes# In McDonald v# Chicago, the Court struck down laws enacted by Chicago and the village of Oak Park effectively banning handgun possession by almost all private citizens, holding that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Second Amendment right, recognized in Heller, to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense# The Court reasoned that this right is fundamental to the nation's scheme of ordered liberty, given that self-defense was a basic right recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present, and Heller held that individual self-defense was "the central component" of the Second Amendment right# Moreover, a survey of the contemporaneous history also demonstrated clearly that the Fourteenth Amendment's Framers and ratifiers counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to the Nation's system of ordered liberty#
There are no replies to Comment # 2. End Trace Mode for Comment # 2.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestDanny Glover: “I don’t know if you know the genesis of the right to bear arms...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..”
#2. To: All (#1)
"Our First Amendment says, 'the right of the people', nowhere did it mention the words, 'the right of the white man'!"
Replies to Comment # 2.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]