Something to make your blood boil.

[piercedan]

I read this article this morning and thought about it a while.  It really has upset me that these anti gun idiots will stoop to anything to achieve their goals.  This is one more reason we have to keep writing our reps and showing up to gatherings to respectfully represent our side and fight to retain our rights.

 

I won't spoil it for you...

 

http://truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery

[mcurrier]

White-washing, agenda-driven, ignorant morons.

[jtmaze]

Man I only got to the third paragraph, beofre I got too mad to read while at work. I will finish this later.

[DaveS]

Yes, it was somewhat about slavery.

 

Dave  S

[MikePapa1]

I laughed.

[Tempest455]

What a F'ing idiot!

 

Big shock that he's a self proclaimed most popular liberal talk show host and fomer physcotherapist. Ironic, no?

 

Liberals...................always trying to re-write history.

[JPR1959]

I think the Federalist 46 paper written by James Madison explains the 2nd amendment and the reasoning/logic behind it. It reads as follows:

Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops.

[vontar]

I won't give anything away expect to point out

 

1755 and 1757.  That was under English rule.  Piers Morgan could probably explain why they allowed any slavery.