Lord Killian has done Thom Hartmann several times.
I guess it's my turn because of this article he published last year on RawStory.
I've shown several times how gun control has racist roots,
and was initially passed specifically to keep free black people from having an equal place in society
as well as keeping slaves from being armed lest they revolt.
Gun control people like Hartmann HAVE to deny this,
and as we see throughout the so-called "progressive" movement,
they do this by trying to paint people who disagree with them as racist.
Remember that I've also established before
that the progressive movement was borne out of the eugenics movement,
and many of their policies,
gun control included but also many others like minimum wage and social security,
were passed with the intention of marginalizing blacks and other people they saw as inferior.
Just as a quick reminder, it was prominent progressive economist Frank Taussig
who wrote in his "Principles of Economics", quote:
“Unfortunately, we have not reached the stage
where we can proceed to chloroform them once and for all;
but at least they can be segregated, shut up in refuges and asylums,
and prevented from propagating their kind...
The wages at which they can find employment
depend on the prices at which their product will sell in the market;
or in the technical language of modern economics,
on the marginal utility of their services.
All those whose additional product would so depress prices
that the minimum could no longer be paid by employers
would have to go without employment.
It might be practicable to prevent employers from paying anyone less than the minimum;
though the power of law must be very strong indeed, and very rigidly exercised,
in order to prevent the making of bargains which are welcome to both bargainers.”
If you want to know more, see my videos
"Gun Control: Another Racist Progressive Policy",
and more generally about the progressive movement and eugenics,
"Racism: In Business or Government? Seven Years Later."
Links are in the description.
So it's very telling how desperate Hartmann is to distort and even LIE about history
in order to cover the racist origins of gun control,
and pretend instead that it's the SECOND AMENDMENT that's racist somehow.
So let's take a look.
"The real reason the Second Amendment was ratified,
and why it says 'State' instead of 'Country'
(the Framers knew the difference – see the 10th Amendment),
was to preserve the slave patrol militias in the southern states,
which was necessary to get Virginia’s vote.
Founders Patrick Henry, George Mason, and James Madison
were totally clear on that...and we all should be too."
Okay, first of all, nice little equivocation fallacy on the word "state."
It has two meanings, he knows it, and there are plenty of cases where they used it either way.
And by the way, the Constitution NEVER ONCE uses the word "country"!
But, the main point is that the idea
that the Second Amendment was passed to preserve slavery and arm the slave patrols is LAUGHABLE.
Quick reality check:
The vote he's talking about was Virginia's ratification of the Constitution,
which was voted on in June of 1788.
The Second Amendment hadn't even been WRITTEN at the time,
and it was NO part of the Virginia ratification debates.
Now, maybe he's just confused
and he's trying to talk about Virginia's ratification of the Bill of Rights.
But this also fails from the simple fact
that each amendment of the Bill of Rights was ratified INDEPENDENTLY.
There were actually 12 amendments proposed in the Bill of Rights, and two of them weren't ratified.
One eventually was ratified as the 27th amendment in 1992, and the other was never ratified at all.
So it's absolutely ridiculous to say that they were forced to pass the Second Amendment
to get Virginia's vote on ANYTHING else.
He also doesn't seem to realize that James Madison
was a political ENEMY of Patrick Henry and George Mason.
And neither Henry nor Mason were in Congress when Madison proposed the Bill of Rights.
Even more laughably: Patrick Henry actually OPPOSED the Second Amendment!
Not because he opposed the right to keep and bear arms;
in fact, he vociferously advocated for it on many occasions.
He was against the Bill of Rights—and the Constitution as well—
because he felt it gave the central government too much power.
Also, the Second Amendment had NOTHING to do with arming slave patrols.
States could arm these patrols with or without a Second Amendment.
The Second Amendment was about INDIVIDUALS being able to arm themselves
without fear of the federal government coming in and taking them.
It NEVER had ANYTHING to do one way or the other with state or local law enforcement.
The slave patrols would be armed with or without the Second Amendment.
Wow, that's just the first paragraph!
Hartmann is really good about writing really dense bullcrap.
I mean, he really crams a lot of it into a small space.
Let's look at his second paragraph.
"In the beginning, there were the militias.
In the South, they were also called the 'slave patrols,'
and they were regulated by the states."
The slave patrols had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with state militias.
The militia was about individual citizens being armed en masse
so that they could be called into action in case of foreign invasion,
or a tyrannical president got into power.
But slave patrols were PARTICULAR patrolmen appointed by the state
as regular law enforcement officials.
"By the time the Constitution was ratified,
hundreds of substantial slave uprisings had occurred across the South."
Uh, citation needed.
There is absolutely no evidence of hundreds of such uprisings in colonial history.
Indeed, if such uprisings were ever found to have happened,
it would DRAMATICALLY shift our view of colonial America.
There were a few cases of violence arising from slaves attempting to escape,
but that's not the same thing, and none of them were in any way "substantial."
The only significant slave uprising that history records
is the Stono Rebellion in South Carolina in 1739,
half a century before the Constitution.
It inspired some minor rebellions the next few years in Georgia and South Carolina,
but aside from a more minor revolt in New York in 1741
which was more vandalism than rebellion,
there's no record of any slave revolts of any note until 1800,
after the Bill of Rights was ratified.
"Their main concern was that Article 1, Section 8 of the newly-proposed Constitution,
which gave the federal government the power to raise and supervise a militia,
could also allow that federal militia to subsume their state militias
and change them from slavery-enforcing institutions
into something that could even, one day, free the slaves."
This is absolutely LAUGHABLE.
Not only is there not the FIRST PIECE of evidence that anyone thought that,
certainly didn't think it important enough to write it down,
it's difficult to imagine how they even COULD do this
under the restrictions of Article I Section 8.
In fact, Article I specifically allows states to train and call up their own militias.
Hartmann doesn't understand the FIRST THING about the Constitution.
Also, remember that the Constitution was
originally written in large part to SUPPORT slavery.
There was the three-fifths clause, the fugitive slave clause, the slave trade clause,
and the domestic insurrection clause.
The fifth amendment was actually used to protect the so-called "property" of slave owners,
meaning they by and large COULDN'T be freed!
In fact, one of the big concerns of the anti-federalists
was that it was the Constitution that could be used to force northern militias
to march south and suppress slave rebellions!
Exactly the OPPOSITE of what Hartmann claims!
And this actually happened, by the way.
Look at what happened to Nat Turner's rebellion in 1831 and John Brown's in 1859.
"This was not an imagined threat.
Famously, 12 years earlier, during the lead-up to the Revolutionary War,
Lord Dunsmore offered freedom to slaves who could escape and join his forces."
Again, Harmann has his dates mixed up.
This happened AFTER the Revolutionary War began, not in the lead-up to it.
If you can't even get your chronology right, nothing else matters.
He does some more quote-mining from Mason and Henry,
and badly at that because careful reading of his truncated quotes
reveals that they STILL didn't say what he's claiming they did!
The REAL reason for their opposition to these clauses
was because it would give the federal government power to regulate the state militias,
meaning that they could neglect the upkeep of the militias
and end up with an overpowering force in the form of a standing army to oppress the states.
As I showed in "Gun Control: Another Racist Progressive Policy",
it's GUN CONTROL, NOT the Second Amendment, that was used to prevent slave uprisings
and keep freed blacks marginalized after the Civil War.
In fact, the first policy the KKK advocated for was gun control!
Whereas the history of the civil rights movement is all about blacks arming themselves,
and it was only when gun control measures were so onerous that Martin Luther King realized
that the government was NOT going to let his people be armed
that he switched to his policy of nonviolence.
Armed with that knowledge, you can see Harmann's final paragraph for what it is:
"Little did Madison realize that one day in the future, weapons-manufacturing corporations,
newly defined as 'persons' by a Supreme Court some have called dysfunctional,
would use his slave patrol militia amendment to protect their 'right'
to manufacture and sell assault weapons used to murder schoolchildren."
Thom Hartmann is a HORRIBLE individual,
taking a big stinking crap all over the graves of those who died
to pursue his RACIST agenda.
If Hartmann isn't racist himself,
then his state cult has poisoned his mind into supporting racism and not even realizing it,
and making him completely immune to any information contradicting it—
to the point where he will tell BALD-FACED LIES about history.
The Second Amendment is about allowing EVERYONE to be armed, INCLUDING blacks.
Think about a lot of problems blacks in this country are facing,
from gang warfare on their streets to cops committing acts of blatant murder.
Imagine if we fully respected the second amendment,
which includes respecting not only their right to bear arms
but also their right to use them in defense against government forces
who are aggressing on them for no good purpose.
Things would look a LOT better for them if we did.
So thanks for watching. If you like this video please hit Like, Subscribe, and the bell,
and as usual you can support this channel by going to donate.bogosity.tv,
with links to donate via PayPal or crypto, links to Patreon and SubscribeStar
if you want to become a regular supporter and get these videos early,
or, believe it or not, you can support this channel for FREE with the AirTime extension
and even get a little bit of money for yourself!
So check the links below, and until next time, stay strong and be free.