Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Current Events & Hot Topics Current Events & Hot Topics

Wow, Just wow, Can he actually Believe the crap he is spewing?

Posted by on Jan. 19, 2013 at 6:44 AM
  • 157 Replies


[WATCH] Actor Danny Glover tells students 2nd Amendment was created to protect slavery


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.

Actor Danny Glover told students at Texas A&M University the intent of the Second Amendment was to protect slavery.

“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.

Follow the author of this article on twitter: @TimPDion

source

by on Jan. 19, 2013 at 6:44 AM
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Replies (1-10):
gemma458
by Member on Jan. 19, 2013 at 6:50 AM
9 moms liked this

And sadly, so many people will just take what he said as fact, without any effort to research on their own. That is just the way of so many. It amazes me at the ignorance of what he said.

turtle68
by Mahinaarangi on Jan. 19, 2013 at 6:53 AM
3 moms liked this

 why cant it be true?

candlegal
by Judy on Jan. 19, 2013 at 6:58 AM
2 moms liked this

I know he has always been a whack job but is he getting senile now?   Is he old enough for that?     Sheesh

Quoting gemma458:

And sadly, so many people will just take what he said as fact, without any effort to research on their own. That is just the way of so many. It amazes me at the ignorance of what he said.


LoveMyBoyK
by Ruby Member on Jan. 19, 2013 at 7:30 AM
3 moms liked this
Because it is not. Should we lie and pretend his made up reasons are accurate?

here: civilliberty.about.com/od/guncontrol/p/2nd_amendment.htm


Quoting turtle68:

 why cant it be true?


Posted on CafeMom Mobile
gemma458
by Member on Jan. 19, 2013 at 7:30 AM

 Lol, he sure sounds like it!!


Quoting candlegal:

I know he has always been a whack job but is he getting senile now?   Is he old enough for that?     Sheesh

Quoting gemma458:

And sadly, so many people will just take what he said as fact, without any effort to research on their own. That is just the way of so many. It amazes me at the ignorance of what he said.



 

candlegal
by Judy on Jan. 19, 2013 at 7:39 AM
4 moms liked this

You have more patience then I do.   I couldn't really believe she asked that question.

Quoting LoveMyBoyK:

Because it is not. Should we lie and pretend his made up reasons are accurate?

here: civilliberty.about.com/od/guncontrol/p/2nd_amendment.htm


Quoting turtle68:

 why cant it be true?



LoveMyBoyK
by Ruby Member on Jan. 19, 2013 at 7:43 AM
1 mom liked this
Isn't she Canadian or something other than American? i just assumed she has never had reason to study the history of our nation.


Quoting candlegal:

You have more patience then I do.   I couldn't really believe she asked that question.

Quoting LoveMyBoyK:

Because it is not. Should we lie and pretend his made up reasons are accurate?



here: civilliberty.about.com/od/guncontrol/p/2nd_amendment.htm





Quoting turtle68:

 why cant it be true?





Posted on CafeMom Mobile
candlegal
by Judy on Jan. 19, 2013 at 7:49 AM

I think Canadian but I am also pretty sure she doesn't believe that.

Quoting LoveMyBoyK:

Isn't she Canadian or something other than American? i just assumed she has never had reason to study the history of our nation.


Quoting candlegal:

You have more patience then I do.   I couldn't really believe she asked that question.

Quoting LoveMyBoyK:

Because it is not. Should we lie and pretend his made up reasons are accurate?



here: civilliberty.about.com/od/guncontrol/p/2nd_amendment.htm





Quoting turtle68:

 why cant it be true?






Debmomto2girls
by Platinum Member on Jan. 19, 2013 at 7:59 AM
12 moms liked this

He is partially right. If you scroll down the article, you will see. It not only protected citizens against a Bristish invasion but from domestic uprisings stemming from the many different uprisings including Native American and slave uprisings. And it makes sense. It was a newly formed government and not solid. They were afraid of domestic revolutions as well as overseas.




The Right’s Second Amendment Lies

December 21, 2012

Exclusive: A big obstacle to commonsense gun control is the Right’s false historical narrative that the Founders wanted an armed American public that could fight its own government. The truth is that George Washington looked to citizens militias to put down revolts and maintain order, says Robert Parry.





By Robert Parry



Right-wing resistance to meaningful gun control is driven, in part, by a false notion that America’s Founders adopted the Second Amendment because they wanted an armed population that could battle the U.S. government. The opposite is the truth, but many Americans seem to have embraced this absurd, anti-historical narrative.



The reality was that the Framers wrote the Constitution and added the Second Amendment with the goal of creating a strong central government with a citizens-based military force capable of putting down insurrections, not to enable or encourage uprisings. The key Framers, after all, were mostly men of means with a huge stake in an orderly society, the likes of George Washington and James Madison.





President George Washington, as Commander-in-Chief, leading a combined force of state militias against the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794.

The men who gathered in Philadelphia in 1787 weren’t precursors to France’s Robespierre or Russia’s Leon Trotsky, believers in perpetual revolutions. In fact, their work on the Constitution was influenced by the experience of Shays’ Rebellion in western Massachusetts in 1786, a populist uprising that the weak federal government, under the Articles of Confederation, lacked an army to defeat.



Daniel Shays, the leader of the revolt, was a former Continental Army captain who joined with other veterans and farmers to take up arms against the government for failing to address their economic grievances.



The rebellion alarmed retired Gen. George Washington who received reports on the developments from old Revolutionary War associates in Massachusetts, such as Gen. Henry Knox and Gen. Benjamin Lincoln. Washington was particularly concerned that the disorder might serve the interests of the British, who had only recently accepted the existence of the United States.



On Oct. 22, 1786, in a letter seeking more information from a friend in Connecticut, Washington wrote: “I am mortified beyond expression that in the moment of our acknowledged independence we should by our conduct verify the predictions of our transatlantic foe, and render ourselves ridiculous and contemptible in the eyes of all Europe.”



In another letter on Nov. 7, 1786, Washington questioned Gen. Lincoln about the spreading unrest. “What is the cause of all these commotions? When and how will they end?” Lincoln responded: “Many of them appear to be absolutely so [mad] if an attempt to annihilate our present constitution and dissolve the present government can be considered as evidence of insanity.”



However, the U.S. government lacked the means to restore order, so wealthy Bostonians financed their own force under Gen. Lincoln to crush the uprising in February 1787. Afterwards, Washington expressed satisfaction at the outcome but remained concerned the rebellion might be a sign that European predictions about American chaos were coming true.



“If three years ago [at the end of the American Revolution] any person had told me that at this day, I should see such a formidable rebellion against the laws & constitutions of our own making as now appears I should have thought him a bedlamite – a fit subject for a mad house,” Washington wrote to Knox on Feb. 3, 1787, adding that if the government “shrinks, or is unable to enforce its laws … anarchy & confusion must prevail.”



Washington’s alarm about Shays’ Rebellion was a key factor in his decision to take part in – and preside over – the Constitutional Convention, which was supposed to offer revisions to the Articles of Confederation but instead threw out the old structure entirely and replaced it with the U.S. Constitution, which shifted national sovereignty from the 13 states to “We the People” and dramatically enhanced the power of the central government.



A central point of the Constitution was to create a peaceful means for the United States to implement policies favored by the people but within a structure of checks and balances to prevent radical changes deemed too disruptive to the established society. For instance, the two-year terms of the House of Representatives were meant to reflect the popular will but the six-year terms of the Senate were designed to temper the passions of the moment. 



Within this framework of a democratic Republic, the Framers criminalized taking up arms against the government. Article IV, Section 4 committed the federal government to protect each state from not only invasion but “domestic Violence,” and treason is one of the few crimes defined in the Constitution as “levying war against” the United States as well as giving “Aid and Comfort” to the enemy (Article III, Section 3).   



But it was the Constitution’s drastic expansion of federal power that prompted strong opposition from some Revolutionary War figures, such as Virginia’s Patrick Henry who denounced the Constitution and rallied a movement known as the Anti-Federalists. Prospects for the Constitution’s ratification were in such doubt that its principal architect James Madison joined in a sales campaign known as the Federalist Papers in which he tried to play down how radical his changes actually were.



To win over other skeptics, Madison agreed to support a Bill of Rights, which would be proposed as the first ten amendments to the Constitution. Madison’s political maneuvering succeeded as the Constitution narrowly won approval in key states, such as Virginia, New York and Massachusetts. The First Congress then approved the Bill of Rights which were ratified in 1791. [For details, see Robert Parry’s America’s Stolen Narrative.]



Behind the Second Amendment



The Second Amendment dealt with concerns about “security” and the need for trained militias to ensure what the Constitution called “domestic Tranquility.” There was also hesitancy among many Framers about the costs and risks from a large standing army, thus making militias composed of citizens an attractive alternative.



So, the Second Amendment read:  “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.” Contrary to some current right-wing fantasies about the Framers wanting to encourage popular uprisings over grievances, the language of the amendment is clearly aimed at maintaining order within the country.



That point was driven home by the actions of the Second Congress amid another uprising which erupted in 1791 in western Pennsylvania. This anti-tax revolt, known as the Whiskey Rebellion, prompted Congress in 1792 to expand on the idea of “a well-regulated militia” by passing the Militia Acts which required all military-age white males to obtain their own muskets and equipment for service in militias.



In 1794, President Washington, who was determined to demonstrate the young government’s resolve, led a combined force of state militias against the Whiskey rebels. Their revolt soon collapsed and order was restored, demonstrating how the Second Amendment helped serve the government in maintaining “security,” as the Amendment says.



Beyond this clear historical record – that the Framers’ intent was to create security for the new Republic, not promote armed rebellions – there is also the simple logic that the Framers represented the young nation’s aristocracy. Many, like Washington, owned vast tracts of land. They recognized that a strong central government and domestic tranquility were in their economic interests.



So, it would be counterintuitive – as well as anti-historical – to believe that Madison and Washington wanted to arm the population so the discontented could resist the constitutionally elected government. In reality, the Framers wanted to arm the people – at least the white males – so uprisings, whether economic clashes like Shays’ Rebellion, anti-tax protests like the Whiskey Rebellion, attacks by Native Americans or slave revolts, could be repulsed.



However, the Right has invested heavily during the last several decades in fabricating a different national narrative, one that ignores both logic and the historical record. In this right-wing fantasy, the Framers wanted everyone to have a gun so they could violently resist their own government. To that end, a few incendiary quotes are cherry-picked or taken out of context.



This “history” has then been amplified through the Right’s powerful propaganda apparatus – Fox News, talk radio, the Internet and ideological publications – to persuade millions of Americans that their possession of semi-automatic assault rifles and other powerful firearms is what the Framers intended, that today’s gun-owners are fulfilling some centuries-old American duty.



The mythology about the Framers and the Second Amendment is, of course, only part of the fake history that the Right has created to persuade ill-informed Tea Partiers that they should dress up in Revolutionary War costumes and channel the spirits of men like Washington and Madison.



But this gun fable is particularly insidious because it obstructs efforts by today’s government to enact commonsense gun-control laws and thus the false narrative makes possible the kinds of slaughters that erupt periodically across the United States, most recently in Newtown, Connecticut, where 20 schoolchildren and six teachers were murdered in minutes by an unstable young man with a civilian version of the M-16 combat rifle.



While it’s absurd to think that the Founders could have even contemplated such an act – in their 18th Century world of single-fire muskets that required time-consuming reloading – right-wing gun advocates have evaded that obvious reality by postulating that Washington, Madison and other Framers would have wanted a highly armed population to commit what the Constitution defined as treason against the United States.



Today’s American Right is drunk on some very bad history, which is as dangerous as it is false.



Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his new book, America’s Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com).



Share this Article:



Tags: George Washington, Gun Control, James Madison, Newtown Massacre, Robert Parry, Second Amendment



http://consortiumnews.com/2012/12/21/the-rights-second-amendment-lies/

Posted on the NEW CafeMom Mobile
Carpy
by Ruby Member on Jan. 19, 2013 at 8:07 AM

Sadly, yes.

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

close Join now to connect to
other members!
Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN