Do black/minority homicides matter in this country?

[firstandten]

Also Thom Hartmann gives a perspective which has a historical basis in that the second amendment was ratified to maintain slavery in the South. http://theragblog.blogspot.com/2013/...=1359128372346

[oladub]

Also Thom Hartmann gives a perspective which has a historical basis in that the second amendment was ratified to maintain slavery in the South. http://theragblog.blogspot.com/2013/...=1359128372346

This suggests that Thom Hartman has an axe to grind against the Constitution. But he's a liberal, so that wouldn't surprise me. How many times have we heard liberals disparage the Constitution as having been written by 1.old, 2.rich, 3.white, 4.male, 5.slaveholders? Hartman's thesis was an imaginative construct of bits and pieces before the revolution, exaggerations, quotes put into a certain light, and the convenient omission of everything that didn't fit in. It supposes that the only guns the second amendment refers to are those used by militias when probably many rural households possessed guns for hunting and family security. It doesn't explain why non slave states also had militias. It is difficult to believe that local militias didn't exercise discipline as the article suggests. It was an amazing revelation that a draft, of sorts, existed to such a widespread extent and that there were so many large slave uprisings. My memory has it that the two Anglican colonies, MA and VA, had a draft prior to the Revolution and that it was not otherwise used until Lincoln instituted a national draft with loopholes for the rich. Neither does the Second Amendment suggest that "people" is synonymous with militia. If that is what Hartman is suggesting than the Ninth and Tenth Amendment take on new meanings.

[firstandten]

This suggests that Thom Hartman has an axe to grind against the Constitution. But he's a liberal, so that wouldn't surprise me. How many times have we heard liberals disparage the Constitution as having been written by 1.old, 2.rich, 3.white, 4.male, 5.slaveholders? Hartman's thesis was an imaginative construct of bits and pieces before the revolution, exaggerations, quotes put into a certain light, and the convenient omission of everything that didn't fit in. It supposes that the only guns the second amendment refers to are those used by militias when probably many rural households possessed guns for hunting and family security. It doesn't explain why non slave states also had militias. It is difficult to believe that local militias didn't exercise discipline as the article suggests. It was an amazing revelation that a draft, of sorts, existed to such a widespread extent and that there were so many large slave uprisings. My memory has it that the two Anglican colonies, MA and VA, had a draft prior to the Revolution and that it was not otherwise used until Lincoln instituted a national draft with loopholes for the rich. Neither does the Second Amendment suggest that "people" is synonymous with militia. If that is what Hartman is suggesting than the Ninth and Tenth Amendment take on new meanings.

Even though Hartmann is a liberal I don't think he has an axe to grind on the Constitution, in fact I think he respects it greatly. While there is some disagreement within the academic community on his second amendment slavery take that I posted. I believe the NRA and fringe right need to be called to task as well for creating a narrative of the second amendment that doesn't quite ring true based on the historical activity at the time. Here is another take not from Hartmann but from his blog on the second amendment. http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/20...cond-amendment