Danny Glover recognizes original intent of Second Amendment was to secure right of self defense

"You don't interpret the constitution with the scholar you wish you have, but rather, the one you DO have." Donald Rumsfeld, 2002

“You interpret the constitution with the scholar you have, not the one you wish you had” Donald Rumsfeld, 2004

Of course, he says it was drafted so that whitey could defend himself against uppity slaves and rampaging Indians, but at least he’s moved past the regulated militia bullshit his liberal peers are fixated on. You got it, Danny, it’s all about the right to one’s life and thus, the right of self defense. Power to the people right on!

“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.”

21 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

21 responses to “Danny Glover recognizes original intent of Second Amendment was to secure right of self defense

  1. Don Laird

    Wow man!!!….far out!!!!

  2. The amendment was created to protect the colonial way of life through “a well regulated militia.” That system valued slaves at 3/5ths personhood per human being.

    • Don Laird

      EarthImage….EarthImage…….Hmmmmm?……..would that be the rosy colored, myopic and fuzzy image one has of the world when viewed through one’s asshole?……oh do tell……inquiring minds want to know….

      Regards, Don Laird
      Edson, Alberta, Canada

    • Libertarian Advocate

      The Amendment was adopted to enshrine a god given right to defense against a corrupt and tyrannical sovereign. Slavery had exactly nothing to do with it.

    • Don Laird

      Oh and by the way……as it’s slipped your attention……it was the democrats who numbered amongst the most enthusiastic of slave owners…..a fly in the ointment of Leftist Americana the size of a blue whale……..I wonder……since when did the since when did the perfect vision of retrospective historical analysis become so fuzzy………….oh I know…..when viewed through one’s asshole……

      Regards, Don Laird…….”Another Filthy Hater”
      Edson, Alberta, Canada

    • That’s doesn’t seem very thoughtful, EI. I read what you wrote as an indictment of our founders and their governmental architecture, invalidating what they did then and what we have become today. The “3/5″ calculation was for Congressional rep count, reached after rabid negotiation between slave owners and non from each state, designed to reduce slave-holding state Federal voting influence. Each slave couldn’t vote as it was, so you’re seeming to claim they were valued as less than white, which they clearly were, BUT you are attempting (as far as I can interpret) to invalidate the then new American system of government. Tell me how it wasn’t huge human progress AT THE TIME to have written a Declaration of Independence AND the Constitution, which was (IMHO) a huge step forward for any people’s governance. Including, shortly thereafter, a deadline for ending slavery.

      Oh, BTW, fuck Danny Glover and the horse he rode in on, even if he did star in “Silverado.”

  3. Anonymous

    Glover is pimping agenda based propaganda. He is wrong but very predictable.

  4. another stb 4 me

    Did Danny Glover also comment on that “fashion icon” (laughing hysterically out loud) Michelle Obama’s new hair style? Flotus my derriere.
    Walt I think this item needs your undivided attention…or are you too busy getting ready for an evening of disco, disco

  5. Fred2

    Gosh, I’d love to see the scholarship that lead to that:

    “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.”

    If that was in the rationale expressed regarding the 2nd amendment, when it was debated and discussed, it was in the small (hand annotated) print in the 17th footnote, of Appendix Q, subsection 45, of one of the more obscure commentaries where someone added it in as an afterthought for completeness.

    I’ll bet it is not though.

    And even if it was, here’s a thought for Mr. Glover; d’ya think it’s better for everyone to be reduced to the disarmed status of the then slaves and tribesmen, (and who will be the guys with the guns putting down the rebellions amongst us ) or for everyone to enjoy the status of free people?

  6. Anonymous

    Danny Glover is a low-information voter (aka low IQ voter)

  7. Cardinal1

    So, let me get this straight. It turns out that both danny glover and mel gibson have , well some rather interesting views on history, and both appear to be racist in there tendencies. No wonder they had such good chemistry in the Lethal Weapon movies…

  8. Artie

    You do realize that the 2nd amendment was viewed differently than it is now? For our first 200 years, or so?

    ” For more than a hundred years, the answer was clear, even if the words of the amendment itself were not. The text of the amendment is divided into two clauses and is, as a whole, ungrammatical: “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.” The courts had found that the first part, the “militia clause,” trumped the second part, the “bear arms” clause. In other words, according to the Supreme Court, and the lower courts as well, the amendment conferred on state militias a right to bear arms—but did not give individuals a right to own or carry a weapon.

    Enter the modern National Rifle Association. Before the nineteen-seventies, the N.R.A. had been devoted mostly to non-political issues, like gun safety. But a coup d’état at the group’s annual convention in 1977 brought a group of committed political conservatives to power—as part of the leading edge of the new, more rightward-leaning Republican Party. (Jill Lepore recounted this history in a recent piece for The New Yorker.) The new group pushed for a novel interpretation of the Second Amendment, one that gave individuals, not just militias, the right to bear arms. It was an uphill struggle. At first, their views were widely scorned. Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, who was no liberal, mocked the individual-rights theory of the amendment as “a fraud.”

    But the N.R.A. kept pushing—and there’s a lesson here. Conservatives often embrace “originalism,” the idea that the meaning of the Constitution was fixed when it was ratified, in 1787. They mock the so-called liberal idea of a “living” constitution, whose meaning changes with the values of the country at large. But there is no better example of the living Constitution than the conservative re-casting of the Second Amendment in the last few decades of the twentieth century. (Reva Siegel, of Yale Law School, elaborates on this point in a brilliant article.)

    The re-interpretation of the Second Amendment was an elaborate and brilliantly executed political operation, inside and outside of government. Ronald Reagan’s election in 1980 brought a gun-rights enthusiast to the White House. At the same time, Orrin Hatch, the Utah Republican, became chairman of an important subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and he commissioned a report that claimed to find “clear—and long lost—proof that the second amendment to our Constitution was intended as an individual right of the American citizen to keep and carry arms in a peaceful manner, for protection of himself, his family, and his freedoms.” The N.R.A. began commissioning academic studies aimed at proving the same conclusion. An outré constitutional theory, rejected even by the establishment of the Republican Party, evolved, through brute political force, into the conservative conventional wisdom.

    And so, eventually, this theory became the law of the land. In District of Columbia v. Heller, decided in 2008, the Supreme Court embraced the individual-rights view of the Second Amendment. It was a triumph above all for Justice Antonin Scalia, the author of the opinion, but it required him to craft a thoroughly political compromise. In the eighteenth century, militias were proto-military operations, and their members had to obtain the best military hardware of the day. But Scalia could not create, in the twenty-first century, an individual right to contemporary military weapons—like tanks and Stinger missiles. In light of this, Scalia conjured a rule that said D.C. could not ban handguns because “handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid.”

    So the government cannot ban handguns, but it can ban other weapons—like, say, an assault rifle—or so it appears. The full meaning of the court’s Heller opinion is still up for grabs. But it is clear that the scope of the Second Amendment will be determined as much by politics as by the law. The courts will respond to public pressure—as they did by moving to the right on gun control in the last thirty years. And if legislators, responding to their constituents, sense a mandate for new restrictions on guns, the courts will find a way to uphold them. The battle over gun control is not just one of individual votes in Congress, but of a continuing clash of ideas, backed by political power. In other words, the law of the Second Amendment is not settled; no law, not even the Constitution, ever is.”

    Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2012/12/jeffrey-toobin-second-amendment.html#ixzz2IQMfdKjX

    • Anonymous

      Artie, you’re wrong having been duped by the revisionist libtard propaganda.

      Well-regulated according to the language of the time, meant common caliber ordnance.

      Toobin and the New Yorker? Seriously?

      • Anonymous

        Just trying to stir the pot. It is true that the interpretation of the second amendment has changed over time.

        I’m kind of surprised that anyone who doesn’t agree with you has been duped, but you don’t realize what the NRA has done to you…

    • Libertarian Advocate

      Artie: An outré constitutional theory Seriously, outré? There is massive documentary support for what you call a “bizarre interpretation” of the language of 2A.

      You might want to go hang out with Piers Morgan. He sounds rather more like your cup of Lapsang Souchong than FWIW.

      Outré. Wow.

  9. Anonymous

    danny glover is an idiot.

    why people look to actors as though they’re some sort of highly qualified intellectual is beyond me.