Real Reason For The 2nd Amendment Part 2
Real Reason For The 2nd Amendment Part 2


in nationwide now he arguments made well
you know i had all americans that guns that while white americans anyway had
guns and i was a fine thank he added that again back to the service
book by professor across the bow to speak in history the second ah… in reality few americans on the guns he
writes uh… they did uh… e the frontier
areas of doing on western pennsylvania near seventeen sixty-five his seventeen
ninety there was a they did a detailed search
of the records of what people on what they left to their hair isn’t things now with
this one dot i think they’ve broken tea cups analyst a personal property and what they found was that fourteen
percent of the household and injuries included firearms and fifty three
percent of those guns weren’t list is not working in addition feel americans hunted balance sales writes quote from the time
of the earliest colonial settlements frontier families relied on indians are
professional hunters for wild game and the colonial semblance regulated all
forms of aunty so ol it’s not like this that this country
was birth in everybody on any gun it was fairly rare except in the south where at the white malaysia was used to terrorize afro-american slaves patrick henry and george mason where the leaders of the anti
federalists movement patrick andrea give me liberty or give me death famer was a big supporter of slavery ironically and he gave a speech at the constitutional convention in which he was very very concerned that
article one section eight the powers given the federal government could be
used to subvert the slave system and that the way that this would happen
and what he was what he was seen was exactly by the way what abraham lincoln
did was that the federal government under
the powers given an article one section eight if there was a war they could call slaves out of the south
into military service and freeze them and does bring about the end of slavery
missile uh… here is his actual speech he said and and this is you know in the in the
debate about whether or not again virginia should should sign up for the constitution in this state there are two hundred and
thirty six thousand blacks and there are many in several other states but there
are few or nine in the northern states under its power to provide for the
general defense congress might analyst blacks into the army and then
emancipated and slavery is detested in the north they will search that paper that being
in the constitution and see if they have the power of menu
mission that is freeing the slaves and have they not sir had they not power
to provide for the general defense in welfare made a i think that these call for the
abolition of slavery may they not per ounce all slaves free
and will they not be warranted by that power this is our ambiguous implication or
logical deduction the paper the constitution speaks to the
point they have the power this it would be the federal government
if we ratify the castration they have the power and clear
unequivocal terms and well clearly uncertainly exercise it he went on to say i decided that jordy estates have not
the ties of simply and fellow feeling for those whose interests would be
affected now there is uh… most of the state
student id you know they were all out about the slavery in the south uses the majority of congress as to the
north and the slaves are to the south end of quote from patrick battery about why if they were and what he was
saying is if they’re if we’re going to ratify this constitution we have to amend it to say that the malicious in the south
that ride the circuit that when the dead when they get that that they’re basically like neighborhood
watches and there aren’t but their right to carry weapons will
not be taken away now james madison responded to patrick
henry twenty minutes after harry gave a speech
james madison stood up and said i was struck with surprise when i heard him
express himself alarm with respect the emancipation of slaves there is no
power warranted in that paper in the constitution if they’re being i know what not and a quote from james madison but that being the case madison had
proposed a second amendment which said but the people have a right to keep and
bear arms that a well-regulated militia composed of the body people trained arms
is the proper natural on safety fence of a free state that standing armies in times of peace
are dangerous to liberty and therefore ought to be avoided as far as the
circumstances and protection the community will admit and there are cases the military should
be under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power that no standing army a regular troops
should be razor kept up in time of peace without the consent of two-thirds of the
member present uh… both houses bache state respectively shall have the
power to provide for organizing arming and dis and disappointing it’s own militia at the malicious shall not be subject to
martial law except in time of war penny he’d modified that to say the
right of people to bear but again there are some of the official well armed
well-regulated militia being necessary for the best security of a free country this was the ultimate first draft of the
second memo but no personal religiously scrupulous a
bearing arms should be compelled to render military service madison and change that in response to
patrick henry to change it from being the best security of a free
country to the best defense of a free states now why was he saying the best defense
of a free state because the state’s in the south defended themselves by you know again
once that level of maine make this very very clear what the malaysia did in the south seventeen fifty five seventeen fifty
seven for example georgia carefully divided militia districts into discrete
patrol areas it required patrols under the dome to
the direction of commissioned malicious tape alicia officers to examine every
plantation each month and authorize them to search all negro houses for offensive weapons
an affirmation and apprehended twenty lashes to any
slate found outside plantation grounds the malaysia were the ones who enforced slavery in
the south and to be found at that point to have
slavery in a police state that a free country oakley st the second member was put into place you’re listening to become hardman
program colleagues execs nineteen seventy-eight your health so dry run in that by your favorite
gunner and by the way i think that we’re seeing the same thing it’s uh… it’s
almost chicago crime like minds discuss before

32 thoughts on “Real Reason For The 2nd Amendment Part 2”

  1. TylerNutify says:

    My brain is now scrambled

  2. Allan Bell says:

    The Bill of rights where not ratified until 1791. Thom quit shelling out your half truths.

  3. drewzillasaurusrex says:

    Don't show up to a gun fight unarmed thom.

  4. LastBref says:

    If you had watched Part 1 of video, you would know that Thom clearly says the Bill of Rights were ratified in 1971. You're a fucking clown. Don't speak.

  5. Light Viper says:

    Slaves were disarmed, you're making the perfect argument illustrating how the 2nd amendment could have protected individual rights. Thanks Thom

  6. Melpheos1er says:

    history is a bitch

  7. John Smith says:

    Again I thought gun nuts were white. This is about responsibility. NO ONE IS SAYING GIVE AWAY GUN FREEDOM! Now I am going to drive a tank to the grocery store.

  8. John Smith says:

    "militia were the ones that enforced slavery in the south" Sounds like the Tea nuts to me.

  9. Vern Etzel says:

    You'll learn more about the US Constitution from Thom's little YT shorts here than you'll ever get from the Institutes and Think Tanks of the radical right. Incredible scholarship for a modern world. Thanks Thom!

  10. TylerNutify says:

    Slaves were also enslaved by those with arms. Whose rights were they protecting but that of the slave owners?

    Is it possible that the 2nd was a compromise between the north that didn't want a federal standing army, and the south that wanted to maintain their militias to enforce slavery?

    If that is true, then it was never about individual rights. Then again, the other nine amendments in the bill of rights were about individual rights.

    This debate will never end.

  11. Catastraseed says:

    uh oh

  12. bluewolverine40 says:

    well yea most of them do use history to shove gun ownership in our face of course that's another thing they are trying change history

  13. bluewolverine40 says:

    they wanna white wash pardon the pun our blood thirsty history about slavery

  14. Frank Koza says:

    William and Mary Law Review has a 2002 article by Lindgren and Heather, "Counting Guns in Early America", that contradicts Bellesiles estimates of gun ownership, stating that guns were in probate records in 6-38% of womens' estates of 4 databases and 50-73% of men's estates in 8 databases. It also claims that none Bellesiles data is replicable, and it includes San Francisco probate data that does not exist for the entire archive from before 1860 was destroyed in the earthquake and fire of 1906.

  15. Frank Koza says:

    There is also a 2010 article in the NY Times that exposes allegations of shoddy research of the Bellestiles book that Bogus used for the figures which you quote here about probate records and a detailed investigative report conducted by three independent historians into the allegations is contained on emory.edu.

  16. Carl J Carlin says:

    Is Mr. Hartmann saying Illinois needs a state militia? Mr. Hartmann's final comment is to imply Chicago's murder rate is a "black" phenomena. Of the 532 murders in Chicago during 2012, 80% were black victims of gang violence, But, only 33% of Chicago's population is black. A militia? Wild stuff.

  17. hazmateer2002 says:

    Thom… so what you are saying is, "If you do not want to be a slave make sure you own a gun."? I thought you were on our side! Isn't that the Tea Party line?

    The Tea Party says that US citizens need guns to protect themselves from the Federal Government… you are saying that the "slave patrols" had guns and the slaves did not. You are confirming their argument.

  18. s9z9s says:

    Yet the Supreme Court assraped the militia argument in D.C. v. Heller, which the fascist extremist Hartmann is ignoring.

  19. Deborah Macaoidh-Selim says:

    Militias would not be subject to martial law except in times of war. So, without the Civil War, the militias could have been legally disarmed. Is that still in the 2nd Amendment?

    There was another part… Henry was worried that the Federal Government would offer emancipation for enlistment. That's exactly what happened. Gross, but effective. Military service in exchange for a better future is still practiced today, and probably will be for a long time to come. We're a nation of mercenaries.

  20. PietraBourneuf says:

    The second amendment is clear. You are reaching. ..i

  21. imbroglio1 says:

    Are you aware that Michael A. Bellesiles was found to have fabricated the gun ownership "research" in his book "Arming America The Origins of a National Gun Culture"? This lead to the Bancroft Prize for his book being recinded and resulted in his resignation in disgrace from his professorship position at Emory University in 2002.

    Emory's investigation found Bellesiles "prolix, confusing, evasive, and occasionally contradictory" and "his scholarly integrity is seriously in question."

  22. GhostHawk1776 says:

    You are twisting this in the same way that ignorant people try to claim why the Civil War was fought. It was not about slavery, over all! It was about big central government over reach and for states to remain free, from a central government that would be too strong, otherswise!
    I am the Militia and I am not racist! I fight for all men to be free from tyranny! We fight for your freedoms, too, not just ours!

  23. lifelessperson1993 says:

    State can also mean a mode or condition, it is also used to refer to nations and not necessarily a state within a country. There may be various reasons why country was changed to state. It may seem obvious to some like Thom that it was to make the constitution appealing to the south. It's obvious to people like me who see more benefit than harm in guns to think otherwise. We interpret laws in topsy turvy ways all the time, and only when the sensitive issues like guns which "cause" mass shootings occur do people debate them in such a manner. Well I think drugs caused those shootings because I want an M4 Carbine but I sure don't want to kill 20 Children…

  24. lifelessperson1993 says:

    “Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest.”
    by Mahatma Gandhi

  25. Ethan Surbaugh says:

    So what sort of conclusion is being drawn here? Are we seriously going to insinuate that opponents to poorly written gun legislation today are all racist? It seems ironic to me, being a supporter of gun ownership, and part of a northern family that has owned firearms for generations. Most of us are progressives, and vote democrat. We have family who fought for the Union in the civil war. One of our family heirlooms is a black powder rifle assembled in Pennsylvania in the 1730's.  Its the slander that's coming from the left I normally call my side that is going to lead us to division on this issue, not coalition. 

  26. Donald Hoffman says:

    lesson please

  27. Gordon Bradley says:

    " happiness is a warm gun
    bang bang shoop shoop "
    bon voyage cowboys !

  28. Sandra Crosby says:

    Anyone that argues the NRA Bologna just totally ignores THE word REGULATED. It also does NOT say "guns"…..it says "arms". You don't have a right to own nukes, biological weapons or chemical weapons……and only the criminals are defending the right to slaughter others. Period.

  29. J. A. Gutekunst says:

    Repeal the 2nd Amendment! The US does not HAVE to be the laughingstock of the world, but until we confront the NRA and its 'members' as the terrorist organization for which they are, we are a joke and a great shame to all. The world will continue to laugh and shun the US while brain dead American gun cultists whoop and guffaw at Fox news' coverage of the latest mass shooting. Toddlers who throw tantrums should not be rewarded with toys, and so I say again, in accord with a recent NY Times article, the time is past-due: Repeal the 2nd amendment. We don't need it. Anyone who says otherwise is full of shit.

  30. lastfanstanding999 says:

    opinions can sometimes be disturbing !!!
    my opinion is that since black violence is thousands of times worse than ever now days,
    so thank God that more then 80% of Americans choose to own rifles, shotguns, pistols and revolvers !!!

  31. Cordelia Awesome says:

    If it is true it stills shows how you can enslave people who do not have the right to beat arms.

  32. Kemono Yama says:

    ANTI-GUN propaganda!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *