No, The Second Amendment Was Not Primarily About Suppressing African Americans

The media has given highly favorable coverage to a new book by Dr. Carol Anderson, chair of Emory University’s Black Studies Department, that argues that “[the Second Amendment] was designed and has consistently been constructed to keep African Americans powerless and vulnerable.”  In interviews with media outlets like CNN and NPR Anderson’s theory is not challenged on the history and purpose of the Second Amendment. Like the contested claims of the “1619” project (which posited that slavery was the motivation for the establishment of the colonies), there might be a reluctance by academics to raise the countervailing historical sources out of fear of being labeled insensitive, defensive, or even racist.  However, this is not a new theory and, while there were concerns at the time about slavery and uprisings, the roots of the Second Amendment can be traced largely to England and the fears of government oppression. The point is not to dismiss this consideration for some pro-slavery figures at the time but to put those statements in a more historically grounded and accurate context.

The book, “The Second: Race and Guns in a Fatally Unequal America,” is the latest work of Anderson who previously published “White Rage: The Unspoken Truth of Our Racial Divide.”  NPR bills its interview as “Historian Carol Anderson Uncovers The Racist Roots Of The Second Amendment.”

In truth, this is not a new theory and was long preceded by more detailed accounts by figures like Carl Bogus who wrote the 1998 work The Hidden History of the Second Amendment. Carl T. Bogus, The Hidden History of the Second Amendment31 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 309 (1998); see also Carl T. Bogus, Race, Riots, and Guns66 S. CAL. L. REV. 1365 (1993). These works are worth reading as are the writings of my colleague Robert Cottrol (and my former colleague) Ray Diamond. See Robert J. Cottrol & Raymond T. Diamond, The Second Amendment: Toward an Afro-Americanist Reconsideration80 GEO. L.J. 309 (1991).

Bogus highlighted the quotes used later by Anderson, including a warning by Patrick Henry that the Constitution gave too much power to the federal government in the “common defense” and did not leave enough powers with the states to defend themselves. Bogus asked “What was Henry driving at? In 1788, Americans did not fear foreign invasion.  Nor did Americans still harbor the illusion that the militia could effectively contest trained military forces.” His answer was slavery and its preservation.

Slavery was a matter discussed both at the Declaration of Independence and during the Constitutional debates. There were those who were concerned about efforts to abolish slavery as well as slave uprisings. However, the Second Amendment does not appear the result in whole or in large part due to those fears. The right to bear arms was viewed as a bulwark against oppression of citizens by the government. In Northern states where slavery was not as popular, the Second Amendment was an important guarantee against that danger of tyranny. For example, the Pennsylvania Constitution (that preceded the Constitution) included these provisions:

That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to and be governed by the civil power.

The inhabitants of the several states shall have liberty to fowl and hunt in seasonable times, on the lands they hold, and on all other lands in the United States not enclosed, and in like manner to fish in all navigable waters, and others not private property, without being restrained therein by any laws to be passed by the legislature of the United States.

New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island and other states had similar precursors to the Second Amendment.  The Framers had just overthrown a tyrant and the image of the militia and the famed “Minutemen” remained fixed in the minds of many at the time.

James Madison captured this purpose in in Federalist No. 46 when he noted that a small federal standing army would be opposed by “a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands” which would be able to defeat a tyrannical standing army. He was highlighting “the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation”

Likewise, important contemporary writers at the time connected the Second Amendment to values heavily steeped in the shared history from England. There were also strong cultural and practical value placed on gun ownership, a right that was limited in England. This was still a young country where many lives along the frontier and relied on guns to sustain themselves and their families in terms of both security and sustenance. There was also a deep-seated mistrust of both a standing army and a centralized government.

That is evident in St. George Tucker’s American edition of Blackstone’s Commentaries (1803). In his publication of Blackstone, Tucker added two footnotes that reflected the thinking of many Framers:

[fn40] The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Amendments to C. U. S. Art. 4, and this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government.

[fn41] Whoever examines the forest, and game laws in the British code, will readily perceive that the right of keeping arms is effectually taken away from the people of England.  The commentator himself informs us, Vol. II, p. 412, “that the prevention of popular insurrections and resistence to government by disarming the bulk of the people, is a reason oftener meant than avowed by the makers of the forest and game laws.”

Tucker later explained this point further:

“This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty . . . . The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game: a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes. True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorise the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty.”

There are a myriad of historical sources expounding on this rationale for the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court has itself highlighted that rationale in its discussions of the history and purpose of the Amendment.

The Anderson book effectively repeats the arguments of Bogus but she offers a far more fluid and casual treatment of the history, as is evident in a recent interview:

“…George Mason. Patrick Henry and George Mason really teamed up like tag team taking on the Federalists and the Constitution. What they argued, was that the Constitution put control of the militia under federal control. That meant that Virginia would be left defenseless, as they saw it, when there is an uprising. When there is a slave uprising, that they could not count on the North. They could not count on the federal government and those in Congress to deploy the militia to help out in the midst of a slave revolt.

And they were like, ‘you know, the North detests slavery and we will be left defenseless. I mean, can we really count on those folk?’ and Madison is arguing, ‘look, you got the Atlantic slave trade. Look, you got the three fifths clause. Look, you got the fugitive slave clause, you’re protected.’ And Patrick Henry’s like, ‘No, we are not.’ And so you started seeing the momentum for a new constitutional convention. And that was the last thing James Madison wanted, because he’s like, ‘if these folks get another bite at this, we’re gonna end up with the Articles of Confederation again’.”

This is the payoff to Patrick Henry and to George Mason. Look, the militia is here. And what it does is it says that the feds cannot interfere with the militia. You are safe to have your militia to defend against slave uprisings. So sitting here in the Bill of Rights, we have an amendment that is about denying Black people their rights.”

That is not, in my view, an accurate account of what was said by some of these figures and, more importantly, what was the primary motivation for the Second Amendment.

While I disagree with the analysis and conclusion, I value the discussion of how slavery may have impacted this and other amendments. Slave revolts were a concern in the South and that fear no doubt reinforced the desire to have a guaranteed right to bear arms, particularly for slave holders like Patrick Henry. I simply disagree with the sweeping generalizations and conclusions reached in the book. Moreover, this is not a new theory as suggested in these media accounts. Indeed, the case was made stronger by academics like Bogus and the general subject is presented with far greater depth and understanding by academics like Cottrol and Diamond.

266 thoughts on “No, The Second Amendment Was Not Primarily About Suppressing African Americans”

  1. Professor, this may very well your best reasoned and most thoroughly contextualized article.
    I admit to a bias in favor of the citing of and the reasoning for a citizen possessing the right to bear arms as cited in the Pennsylvania Constitution, which you rightly and honorably mentioned was written and enacted before the United States Constitution.
    Yes, I was born and raised in Pennsylvania. In 1968, I went school at Cal and stayed for undergraduate, law degree and 35 plus years of law practice, including 20 plus years owning my own law firm and employing lawyers and para-legals. I am retired and live on the North Shore of Kauai, Hanalei.
    I mention this because these 3 States and their citizens have quite different views of gun ownership.
    Simply, the closer one lives in nature, or, at least, close to nature, one not only understands and accepts, but also agrees with the natural and obvious right to self defense as the prime directive of human nature and a civilized human being.
    As for the referenced book, author and the therein “reasoning,” everyone, especially in the U. S., has a right to hustle whatever will sell.
    dennis hanna

  2. The point is that everything must be twisted to lead to racism. Her white cat said meow to her black cat and therefore it must be assessed to be an act Feline racism. EVERYTHING IS RACIST!!! HOW DARE YOU SAY OTHERWISE!!! I SAAY!!!

  3. I recommend an essay by Patrick Michaels titled “Death Spiral of American Academia”. Michaels was Research Professor of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia for 30 years. The essay may be found at judithcurry dot com/2021/06/09/death-spiral-of-american-academia The following is the introductory paragraph the quoting of which should fall within the “fair use” doctrine.

    “Earlier this year, Eric Kaufmann of the University of London published a remarkably detailed and comprehensive study of bias in academia, “Academic Freedom in Crisis: Punishment, Political Discrimination, and Self-Censorship.” Kaufmann’s writing is a product of California’s Center for the Study of Partisanship and Ideology, a small think-tank set up to do research that is forbidden in today’s academy. His finding of rampant left-sided political bias in publication, employment, and promotion in the Academy — and discrimination against anyone right-of-center — qualifies as forbidden scholarship.”

  4. Does anyone remember what there was to talk about before black Democrats forced every discussion on God’s green earth to be about blacks??
    Honestly, they have become the most self-centered group of people……and undeserving of the sickening 24/7 attention.

    Spoiled brats: it’s not just for toddlers anymore. They should be ashamed of themselves, and the pathetic legacy their creating.
    Without fear of punishment because they’re black, looting department stores and drug stores, destroying property and being proud that they’re stealing merchandise the rest of us have to pay for. Cheaters, stealers, thugs, and they’re proud of it. No black Democrat leader ever condemns the looting and destruction. Ever.
    As I said, pathetic!

    1. Cindy

      The Lefties are racist in their perception and treatment of blacks.

      Instead of treating them like adults, with the judgment and responsibilities of adults, the Lefties treat them like children with a child’s abilities.

      Just look at the attitude towards voter ID’s.

      Americans can get ID’s to fly, buy liquor, get vaccinated, and shop at Costco.

      But according to the Lefties, blacks aren’t able to get ID’s to vote.

      Lefties excuse their condescension at caring, the ultimate racist trope.

      1. monumentcolorado…’re exactly right.
        The lefties manipulate the blacks, and in turn, the blacks allow themselves to be manipulated because it’s easier than thinking, and so many of them are addicted to the idea that they’re “victims”.

    2. Cindy,

      Absolutely true. 17%of the population and 99% of the whining. Even billionaires like Oprah complain and whine.

      Meanwhile they commit more than 54% of the murders, trash their neighborhoods, and rob the businesses into bankruptcy and then whine that there is no place to shop because of racism.

      Other races, not just whites, are sick of them.

      1. Sorry, more like 13% of the population, not 17% as I said above. How can such a small percentage be the cause of so much trouble?

        1. Young………my opinion is that although they’re only 13% of the population, they get almost 100% of the attention of the media and Democrats.

          1. Clndy Bragg – that is why 5 Republicans won races in s. Texas this last week. We even have Gov. Abbott putting money is his budget to build the “wall” and the Arizona senate threatening to jail the DOJ if they interfer in their audit. Biden/Harris have no power in the Southwest.

            1. Paul…….yes! And it’s exciting to behold the changing political “landscape”.

      1. Molly without taking any sides or calling anyone names who is the racist?

        The one that places character above color or the one that places color above character? That seems to be a big part of the argument.

        1. That’s what they do. In old times it was ‘witch’. During the French Revolution it was ‘aristocrat’. Now its ‘racist’. They can’t help themselves. It is a substitute for thinking and making an argument grounded in facts.

          1. Young, it’s hard to get people on the left to loudly state a belief that character is important and color is not. I cannot believe that those on the left are so racist.

            I’m hoping Molly answers us and shocks us stating that character defines a man, not color.

      2. MollyG………..always spouting the party line, like a good little brown shirt. Critical thinking is far too scary for her.

      3. MollyG – the word “racist” does not have any meaning any more, it has and is being overused. Find a new word.

      4. MollyG– So long as we refuse to diagnose and address the blatant pathologies in the black population, so long as we scream ‘racist’ at anyone who dares to mention those pathologies, as you did, then those pathologies will grow and they will feed and nourish their rot on destroyed lives.

        You cannot treat a disease if you cannot admit it exists.

        Stop acting as if these people do not have agency of their own and as if they are little more than zoo pets. They are people and it is long past time for them to take some responsibility for themselves.

  5. It is rich and ironic to see conservatives criticize others for historically wrong interpretations of the 2A. They must be pissed others are taking their playbook.

  6. “Look, you got the three fifths clause.” [To control blacks]
    A true scholar, I see. Why are so many black studies experts idiots? Abolish ‘studies’ departments; they are academic gangrene.

      1. Fish…… all seriousness, I think it’s so nice that the staff at Saint Elizabeth’s allows you to use a computer.

      2. Fish – Book burning, and now book cancellation, is the avocation of your lot, the Nazi/Socialist/Communist/BLM lunatics.

        You love it. You prefer burning to reading and it shows.

        1. Nobody on our side cancelled Fauci’s book. We just want it to fail upon publication. 🙂 That is the greater humiliation. 🙂

    1. “’Look, you got the three fifths clause.’ [To control blacks]”

      Not to control blacks (that’s your addition, for your straw man argument). The 3/5 clause was to provide voting power in the House and the EC to the states with large slave populations.

          1. Some people didn’t want them counted at all, as should be the case with illegal immigrants today, and others demanded that they be counted 100%. To get an agreement there was a compromise, something unknown to half of Congress today. Three fifths was less than slave states and more than other states wanted but they would accept the proportion for the sake of agreement.

            1. “Some people didn’t want them counted at all,”

              He wears blinders. Half truths are false and a poor excuse for knowledge.

              Left undiscussed and added to the compromise was the issue of taxation to be in proportion to representation.

              1. S. Meyer– What he is doing is a semi literate version of a fake hate crime. He tries to read racism and victimization into everything. There have been a lot of fake hate crimes lately. The wanna-be victims have created a greater demand for hate crimes than the tiny supply can sustain.

                1. “What he is doing is a semi literate version of a fake hate crime. He tries to read racism and victimization into everything. ”

                  For the semi literate where knowledge lies beyond one’s grasp.

                  A little learning is a dangerous thing;
                  Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:
                  There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
                  And drinking largely sobers us again. …


    2. “A true scholar, I see. Why are so many black studies experts idiots? Abolish ‘studies’ departments; they are academic gangrene.”

      Unfortunately, that is a pathway to success even though it doesn’t add much to society, except for a few. Instead of soft education, they should be going into the STEM fields and becoming known for their advances to society and their professorship in the training of other future scientists and the like. That is the way for a culture to advance instead of living in the past.

      1. Allan proclaims how an entire race should behave, sounding like a complete moron in the process. Of course, he has written several post-doctoral thesis projects on the finer points of being a moron. We defer to his knowledge.

        1. He provided good advice.

          The academy has become a jungle of studies of irrelevant nonsense.

          Standard of living rises when we produce more that humans value with less human effort.

          STEM has done that for all of human history.

          Build a better mousetrap – and you help yourself – and everyone else.

          Free exchange works because it REQUIRES delivering a benefit to others that is worth more to them than what they pay.

          Leftist claptrap does no such thing.

          All these assorted faux studies in academia produce no value of consequence – and appear to produce negative value – they make us worse off not better.

          You are free to get a Phd in advanced underwater transexual basket weaving. If that floats your boat.

          But that helps no one – not even yourself.

          Build a better mousetrap – and you help yourself – and everyone else.

        2. Anonymous the Stupid, if one looks at how other cultures got ahead they note the professions, STEM and business, not new ways of describing victimhood.

          1. Reductionistic thinking at its best/worst. And it still doesn’t cover over your sweeping generalization. Or the absurdity absurdity behind it.

            To take your observation and ground it more in reality it must be pointed out that some people naturally have strengths in the conceptual, and are naturally a better fit in the world of science and technology and engineering. Some people are more naturally geared toward intuition and communication and fit in that world better. Disciplines that derive from those broad characterizations (but *much* less broad that what you’ve put out) are both necessary in an efficiently functioning society.

            Can people be strong equally left brain and right brain? Certainly. But without practice it is not the vast majority. Can that balance be learned? Sure.

            But your pronouncement, and obviously the inner belief that leads you to make it, are quite laughable, limited, short sighted and self serving.

            1. I posted an explanation that victimhood and the study of victimhood didn’t lead to significant advances in society nor a cultural awakening. You replied:

              “Reductionistic thinking …sweeping generalization”

              Big words copied without content. Then you follow with some unattached words containing a lot of filler words and again, no content. You said nothing having to do with my comments, but you continued.

              “some people naturally have strengths in the conceptual …. geared toward intuition and communication … equally left brain and right”

              These words have little to do with the subject matter or what I said early in the thread, but you feel these concepts afford you status and prove that you are smart. Quite the contrary, the words prove what I have been saying all along, that you copy thoughts of others or links because you don’t know what you are talking about and are shallow.

              All of this leads to your finale, an insult.

              “quite laughable, limited, short sighted and self serving.”

              In one reply, you have proven yourself ignorant and unable to produce congruent ideas of your own making. You seem able to follow the rules, such as grammar rules, but you cannot think.

              1. “it is a tale
                Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
                Signifying nothing.”

                I read Anonymous’s post and said “so what?”

                There was no argument.

                It was like a soldier in the trenches lobbing jello squares at the enemy and expecting them to blow up.

                Something is reductionist thinking – oh insult of insults – does ATS even know what that is ?

                Then he follows with people are different – the gods have spoken! If course they are.

                And finally concludes – whatever you say can be rejected for bad motives.

                No where does he make clear what he objects to or why.

                It is a fitting anonymous post.

                The argument itself is hiding.

                1. Anonymous the Stupid has no argument. He responds reflexively, as the brain does not take part in reflexive responses.

  7. Thank you for the analysis.
    Bright ideas are great, but to be persuasive they need empirical grounding, and, you know, like there is some here, but, hey, like, not quite enough. Or something.
    Welcome to the aftermath of affirmative action, reducing standards, and quota systems that ignore merit to promote diversity.
    When I was in grad school, my professors used to show us what they had to do when we complained. I assume that if anyone did that to Dr. Anderson while she as in grad school she would have screamed ‘Microaggression!” or something. Like, you know . . . .
    What a farce. Is she completely clueless about the 18th century?

  8. Well this much can be said, when the Black Panthers stood on the capital steps of California with loaded weapons, St. Ronnie of Reagan could not sign the Mulford Act quick enough. Also the NRA supported the law.

    1. Unfortunately, the NRA has made a few missteps in trying to preserve the 2nd Amendment, such as supporting the Sullivan Act in New York State (1911) to prevent “organized crime” from using pistols or the National Firearms Act (1934) to keep automatic weapons out of the hands of “organized crime”. Neither Act has been applied as the NRA expected. However, one of the original principles of the NRA (1871) was to help the recently freed slaves (and all racial minorities) to obtain firearms and gain proficiency in the use of those firearms.

    2. Fish, the Democrats were in control of the California assembly and voted right along with the Republicans to take control of the weapons used by the Black Panthers brothers. The gun control issue was more important to the Democrats than Black freedom, because it got more votes than the plight of Blacks in America. What’s new. Take a poll and go with what keeps you in power.

  9. Darren:

    Great photos in the previous post.

    Love your ability to both recognize and photograph the beauty of your surroundings.

    City dwellers have access to great restaurants and culture, but nature is unique in its majesty.

  10. It is a shame, and it didn’t have to be this way, but this is yet another example that “Studies” departments (Black, Gender, Latino, etc etc etc) are not places of scholarship, but of activism, and anything coming out of them needs to be viewed very skeptically. That is sad, but true.

    1. “. . . anything coming out of them needs to be viewed very skeptically.”

      You’re being too generous.

      That “scholarship” is more intellectually depraved than is phrenology.

  11. Instead of putting it all here, here’s my thoughts on the anti 2nd Amendment arguments.

    “The 2nd Amendment is under assault by the anti-Constitution firearm banning extremists. These people are trying to b a s t a r d i z e the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment to achieve their anti-firearm goals. These people are further dividing the United States and deepening societal division.”

    When Are People Going To Fully Understand The Constitution and its Amendments.

  12. JT: Thank you for the articulate, scholarly analysis.

    This, on the other hand, is Valley Girl talk and “analysis”: “And they were like, ‘you know, . . .”

  13. It’s evident by now that we cannot expect accurate analysis or even an accurate handling of the data by partisan academics. They have gone the way of journalists and now believe that “advocacy” journalism and academics are acceptable. When this bogus trend passes, future historians — if we ever have any well-trained historians again — will have a lot of garbage to untangle. But black academics are only further discrediting themselves. It’s bad enough that they will always be suspect of attaining their position because of CRT ideology rather than personal achievement — but when they buy into bogus historical ideas and manipulate the data, they are simply proving that they were never cut out for a rigorous academic career in the first place.

  14. Speaking of leftist lies, always remember the fake history book, Arming America, that claimed guns were uncommon in the early days of the frontier and there was no widespread culture of gun ownership until about the time of the Civil War. The book was awarded the prestigious Bancroft Prize, but Columbia University was eventually forced to rescind the prize when the extensive falsifications in the book were exposed. .

    1. But it sounds as if Columbia was too eager to award the prize to check facts that might spoil the precious narrative.

      Expect corruption in academia and treat their prizes like Hollywood Oscars– crap for crap.

  15. I see you on this, Turley…

    “While I disagree with the analysis and conclusion, I value the discussion of how slavery may have impacted this and other amendments. Slave revolts were a concern in the South and that fear no doubt reinforced the desire to have a guaranteed right to bear arms, particularly for slave holders like Patrick Henry. I simply disagree with the sweeping generalizations and conclusions reached in the book. Moreover, this is not a new theory as suggested in these media accounts. Indeed, the case was made stronger by academics like Bogus and the general subject is presented with far greater depth and understanding by academics like Cottrol and Diamond.”

    I think we’re dealing with the reality of overt rationale vs. true rationale here. Sure there was language about owning a weapon, but lessons from the Revolutionary War, and then certainly the War of 1812 after were that the militia, without a true guerrilla strategic plan, could not defend itself against the state. They were outnumbered and out resourced. The amount of weaponry they could own could not stand up to the threat of the state either individually or in small groups…

    So that leaves the original drafting of the amendment in place with what became a true need of slave owners to control their slave populations. It was the grounded reality of the somewhat flighty 2nd amendment language. So the language was left in place to obscure the true meaning/need of how it was being executed. Weaponry was a true advantage in keeping bears from mauling you, hunting a bit, controlling your slave population and driving indigenous tribes from their ancestral lands…

    Big progress was afoot!!

    Now we have the remnant language coupled with a population that has seen dramatic advance in quality of that weaponry without a corresponding advance in mental health to match the technological advance. In short a striking number of people with access to huge technological advance that have the ability to become suicidal and take a bunch of people with them. Of course the people who have the weaponry that don’t do that kick and scream about their individual right to be part of the ‘militia’ as they align with the original lie in the Constitutional language. In short a public health crisis that has moved past early adopter status.

    Interesting times.


    1. “. . . without a corresponding advance in mental health to match the technological advance.”

      That’s a new wrinkle on an old dictatorial premise: Americans are too psychotic to own guns — or to run their own business, speak freely, choose a religion, peacefully assemble, guide their child’s values, manage their own health, assess opposing arguments . . .

      Ever notice how totalitarians always start with the premise: The individual is a congenital defect?

      Then comes the kicker: Higher Authorities — who somehow escaped that “defect,” and are possessed by an unknowable ability — should have total power.

      The standard rejoinder as this point is: But I’m only arguing that *some* people are too crazy to own guns (speak freely, et al.). And, just to be “safe,” all people (crazy or sane) should lose their rights. It’s the same argument in sheep’s clothing, and the same dictatorial result.

        1. Actually, the “rest” is your inability to see the big picture, to grasp underlying premises, and your ignorance of history.

  16. The Framers were indeed worried about some foreign invasion perhaps by the Brits or Spanish. What 2ad the war of 1812? The need for an armed militia was important. A militia can be a local group, not 5he federal government troops. The militia in those days included squads of brown and black bears. The Framers dictated words that got misprinted. “The right to arm bears…”. Not “bear arms”. Some historians describe it as dislectic.
    Arm your bears.

    1. In 1814 we took a little hike.
      Down with General Jackson to the town of New Orleans.
      We took a little bacon and we took a little beans
      We fought the bloody British near the town of New Orleans.

      We fired our guns and the British kept a coming…
      We fired once more and they began a running…
      Down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico.

  17. Lefties lie.

    They lie because they know that the media will accept the lies and that the Lefty rank and file will accept the lies without critical analysis.

    Lefties are emotional creatures who take great comfort in convenient lies.

  18. Don’t confuse them with facts. Those people must assume that the only way to overcome the 2nd is to claim that is racist. Pffft!

Leave a Reply