Boston University Professor: Second Amendment is Based on “Freedom to Enslave”

As we wait for the release of the most significant Second Amendment case in over a decade from the Supreme Court (as early as tomorrow), CBS featured Ibram X. Kendi on Face the Nation on gun rights. Host Margaret Brennan discussed with the Boston University professor how “freedom to enslave” was linked to the “freedom to have guns.” There was no push back on that controversial claim or the underlying suggestion that gun ownership is largely a white impulse or practice.

Kendi is the director of the Center for Antiracist Research at Boston University. He has a history of controversial statements like his claim that Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s adoption of two Haitian children raised the image of a “white colonizer” and she appears to use the children as little more than props. He has also declared that terms like “legal vote” are racist. He was recently in the news after explaining why he took a white doll away from his daughter to prevent her from breathing in “the ‘smog’ of white superiority.”

However,  this is a historical and constitutional claim that should not go without some factual discussion or response.

Kendi portrayed gun ownership in strictly racial terms:

“Enslaved people were fighting for freedom from slavery, and enslavers were fighting for the freedom to enslave, and in many ways, that sort of contrast still exists today. There are people who are fighting for freedom from assault rifles, freedom from poverty, freedom from exploitation, and there are others who are fighting for freedom to exploit, freedom to have guns, freedom to maintain inequality.”

The portrayal of gun owners as “fighting for freedom to exploit, freedom to have guns, freedom to maintain inequality” received no follow up question or challenge in the interview.

Other academics have made this same historical claim. Historian Carol Anderson claims that

“the Second Amendment “provided the cover, the assurances that Patrick Henry and George Mason needed, that the militias would not be controlled by the federal government, but that they would be controlled by the states and at the beck and call of the states to be able to put down these uprisings.”

The ACLU has echoed such views.  NPR breathlessly billed its interview as “Historian Carol Anderson Uncovers The Racist Roots Of The Second Amendment.”

However, the history of the Second Amendment contradicts these claims. States opposed to slavery, like Vermont, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, New York and Rhode Island, had precursor state constitutional provisions recognizing the right to bear arms. In his famous 1770 defense of Capt. Thomas Preston in the Boston Massacre trial, John Adams declared that British soldiers had a right to defend themselves since “here every private person is authorized to arm himself.” His second cousin and co-Founding Father, Samuel Adams, was vehemently anti-slavery and equally supportive of the right to bear arms.

Samuel Adams proclaimed “the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of The United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms…”

Guns were viewed as essential in much of America, which was then a frontier nation, needed for food — but also to protect a free people from tyranny and other threats. (The Minutemen at Concord, after all, were not running to a Klan meeting in 1775.) Law enforcement was relatively scarce at the time, even in the more populous states.

This argument is maintained despite the fact that a quarter of African Americans are gun owners (compared with 36 percent of whites) and gun sales have been increasing in the African American community. Some African Americans have long viewed guns as an equalizer, including escaped slave and famed abolitionist Frederick Douglass, who, in an editorial, heralded the power of “a good revolver, a steady hand.” Gun ownership has a long, fiercely defended tradition in the Black community. Indeed, Ida B. Wells, one of the most prominent anti-lynching activists, declared: “The Winchester Rifle deserves a place of honor in every Black home.”

Here is the interview:


181 thoughts on “Boston University Professor: Second Amendment is Based on “Freedom to Enslave””

  1. “Ibram X. Kendi . . .”

    It is difficult to take seriously as an “expert” on racism, an academic who cannot even define “racism.”

    In practice, his inability to provide such a definition means this: “Racism means whatever I say it means. Now shut up and obey. (And give me more government grants.”)

  2. I would commend to all of you Clarence Thomas’ discussion in his concurrence in McDonald v Chicago of the significance to blacks of the right to bear arms. He goes into great depth on the history in the South of disarming blacks, both slave and free, and of the importance to blacks after the Civil War of arming themselves against Southern state militias and the KKK and similar groups. He heavily criticised Cruickshank, which related to the right of blacks to bear arms in self defence, and argued that it should be overruled.

    Kendi is a fraud.

  3. One of the points against James II in the Glorious Revolution was that he attempted to disarm the Protestant populace. After the Revolution, Parliament enacted the Bill of Rights to prevent the monarch from similar excesses. From the English Bill of Rights in 1689: “That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law.”

    If anything, the right to bear arms was born of the sectarian dispute involving a Protestant people trying to defend themselves from a tyrannical Catholic king.

  4. Is a white family with no Black dolls teaching hate?

    ” The guy sailed through life with no discernable racism to obstruct his path from middle class Queens to academia.”

    I suppose this is a true statement in that you can’t discern it. I know of no Black person including Candace Owens and Clarence Thomas that hasn’t experienced racism. None!

    1. Lately, I know of no white person who HASN’T been accused of racism by progressives. Anything they do is RACIST. The race card is dead BECAUSE of people like Ibram Henry Rogers. HE needs to look in the mirror to see what hating others looks like.

        1. According to this guy at BU, he’s talking about me. I’ve deer hunted with black guys, I’ve shot sporting clays with black guys. Just curious, are they racist to?

            1. I just did. You’ll have to forgive me, but I refuse to make long winded post.

        2. I got called a RACIST by a Progressive WHITE friend when he excitedly asked me how I felt when I voted for Obama, and I said “I didn’t”. He called me a RACIST and walked away and got in his car. That hasn’t been the last time. Because I didn’t vote for the half black guy…I am considered a RACIST.

          1. Do you believe being called a racist is the same as racism? It’s an overaction to your not behaving in the manner he wished but had it been racism, he would have disliked you without regard to who you voted for. Given the last time Obama ran for office was 2012, did your friendship recover in the time since?

            1. There are a lot of blacks lately, that sound just like the old white Racists. Open your eyes. This division was caused by Obama. He started this when he WRONGLY claimed the Police in acted stupidly in Cambridge for actually doing their job, and checking out why it looked like a house was getting broken into. Al Sharpton is a RACIST. Joy Reid is a RACIST. They are no better than the old white RACISTS. They sound exactly the same.

              1. The thought Obama caused racism is confusing, more likely he exposed what was already there. The police in Cambridge did more than “check out” Henry Gates when entering his own home. He was arrested and charged with disorderly conduct, while in his own home. He didn’t assault the officers, they didn’t like his tone. I was a little disappointed Obama backed down under pressure and gave cover to the officers that in my opinion went too far (the charges were later dropped). Is there any Black person that talks about race on a public stage you don’t consider racist? Excluding Senator Tim Scott that says America isn’t a racist country while he keeps accumulating traffic stops when driving while Black and getting carded in the halls of the Senate.

                1. I’m going to do you a favor. I’m going to teach you, what my parents taught me – lessons that have kept me out of trouble for most of my life.

                  1. Work hard to avoid catching the attention of the police. Don’t drive vehicles that look, sound, or smell in a way that attracts attention from anyone. Don’t hand out in places where you attract attention. Don’t engage in behavior that attracts attention. Be the kind of person who blends in, and is never seen. The police can’t hassle you if they don’t notice you.

                  2. NEVER carry illegal things on your person, or in your vehicle. No illegal drugs, illegal guns, stolen anything. Leave that stuff home. If you’re stupid enough to use dope, do it behind locked doors in your home, where you have some protection against search and seizure.

                  3. If you do mess up, and attract the attention of the police, be polite, respectful and considerate. Keep your mouth shut, do not agree to any searches, but obey the officer at all times. Do not mouth off, disobey the officer, or give him any aggravation.

                  4. If the officer is treating you badly, showing you disrespect, racially profiling you, or doing anything else that upsets you, realize that nothing you do or say AT THAT MOMENT is going to stop that. What you do or say CAN make things infinitely worse. You never get into anything with the officer while he is interacting with you. You do everything in your power to end the interaction quickly, politely, and without violence. Once you are away from the officer, THEN you can consult with a lawyer, a community organizer, your religious leader, your government representative, or any other resource to address your concerns. The police officer is NEVER the one to take this up with.

                  5. Acting tough, or playing the activist game with an officer who is interacting with you is never going to make things better, but it will make things infinitely worse. In fact, it might get you arrested, or even shot.

                  Want to do some homework?

                  Read the book Arrest Proof Yourself by Dale Carson, and read / watch anything written by James Duane (law professor).

                  1. Excellent advice.

                    It should be self evident right now that we have a choice, we can have agressive policing which sometimes steps on peoples toes, or we can have weaker policing and more crime and murder.

                    It is very rare that a bad encounter with a police officer is near as bad as any encounter with a criminal.

                    I would love to live in a perfect world – where the police always got it right, never infringed on my rights and still caught all the criminals – especially the violent ones.

                    But we do not live in that world.

                    I have had many encounters with police in my life – most have not been pleasant. I have rarely encountered police that were not agressive beyond what the law allows, and wrong on the law.

                    But as you noted – you will not win those encounters – atleast not with the officer.

                    There is LOTS of police reforms I would like to see.

                    But “defunding” them is NOT one of them. Further in the real world, I would prefer less violent crime at the expense of more aggressive and often wrong cops – even if I frequently leave encounters with police in a foul mood and not happy with their behavior or knowledge.

                    We should also remember always – something the left forgets – we do not live in a perfect world.

                    We must figure out how to make things work in the world we have.

                    I personally want MORE police, not less, even if that means they are less well trained and more belligerent even racist.
                    Bad encounters with a police office very rarely end so badly as bad encounters with a criminal.

                    I do not want a highly paid professional police force – because that means taking skilled people from other more productive jobs.
                    Too often those on the left seem to think that every job should be performed by some skilled professional, and that there is an infinite supply of skilled professionals. There is not.

                    Whenever govrnment incentivises something – it disincentivizes many other things.

        1. Does the March 14, 1891, New Orleans lynchings were the murders of 11 Italian Americans and immigrants in New Orleans count? Not sureof their ages but does that really matter to a tolerant Leftist?

          1. How is that responsive to the question? Those lynchings were in response to the alleged murder of a police chief, a specific act. There was nothing systemic about it.

            1. enigma——-Your whining, whether fake or real, is not sweetening the deal.
              If you want to hear an authentic sob story, filled with unspeakable tragedy, talk to a Jew.

            2. Enigma:

              And that they were all italians ’cause Deputy Doggone It murmurered an Italian slur to the mob as he died had nothing whatsoever to do with it? No general revulsion of Italians there! And despite the fact that several were acquitted of the charge. See, every race has a sad story.

              Oh please, you’re losing your credibility or whatever was left of it after “no mention of slavery” in the Constitution comment.

                  1. You’re being obtuse, sure the Mulford Act doesn’t say Black in the same way the Constitution doesn’t mention slavery. Still, the intention of the act was to target the Black Panthers and other Black people which is exactly what they did. The Constitution was full of protections for slaveholders including the Electoral College, the three-fifths clause, and others.

              1. mespo………Those Italian immigrants had landed, there at trhe end of Canal street, and immediately settled in, creating businesses up and down the street, in the heart of the Quarter. But the Irish were the tough “kids on the block” and were jealous of the Italians. Can’t remember how or why the Irish Chief of Police was murdered, but the Italian immigrants were blamed and brought to trial. All 13 were acquitted……..then hunted down and lynched by the Irish. cops. At the time, wasn’t it the biggest lynching ever? Anyway, that’s how I heard the story. My family was from north of Interstate 10 in Louisiana, but N’Orleans was a favorite visit, because it was considered another country!

        2. Boy are you dumb and ignorant. Virtually every college discriminates against whites and asians. And when it comes time to fire employees they prefer to fire whites rather than be accused of “racism.” That is systemic racism against whites and systemic privilege for blacks. The worst thing you can be in this country is white, male, straight, christian, and older.

            1. There are plenty of examples that have already been provided and documented. Ivan gave a great example. Why does one have to provide a personal experience? If one does you will call him a liar.

            2. Every student who was denied entry to the college of their choice because they are white or Asian is an example. This shouldn’t be hard to understand unless you have a really low IQ. It could also be that you are deliberately being obtuse which would be par for the course for your ilk.

                  1. Because those of you claiming every white person that went to college has faced racism are unable to substantiate what happened to themselves. If all this racism against white people is so rampant, provide an example? So far Cindy Bragg is the only one to present an example of racism though it had nothing to do with college and definitely wasn’t systemic racism. Iy you all are claiming to be victims of this heinous behavior, you ought to be able to give an example. Unless of course in attempting to put in on paper you realized just how weak the claim is.

                    1. Enough. What you consider RACISM towards you, is happening to white people today. You can close your eyes and say “that’s not the same,” but if you were honest with yourself you would see that hatred of another race IS racism, no matter what color you are. Today, Blacks are being RACIST against whites and Asians. It is not a joke. With attitudes like yours, nothing will ever change.

                    2. Hardly anybody hates you, (though I could see why), all I see is you whining about alleged experiences you can’t articulate. How has racism affected you?

                    3. “So far Cindy Bragg is the only one to present an example of racism though it had nothing to do with college “

                      Enigma, are you telling me that my family never faced racism despite being murdered, enslaved, starved, beaten, and incarcerated? That was based on the worst type of racism, yet you don’t recognize that. Do you know anything about racism?

                      I didn’t include loss of job offers and other things of that nature. I also didn’t include the racial violence faced, or college admission though I don’t see why a child of yours should have preference over another child. You are firmly entrenched in American society and no child or family member of yours needs a leg up.

                      I also didn’t include racial violence that impacts all of us. Much of that is a result of elders that act and promote hate even when they falsely think they are promoting the truth.

                      To me, the racism you face is nothing. You had a scholarship. You were never incarcerated or enslaved. Were your parents or grandparents enslaved? No? Then stop complaining. Do something for your community instead of providing excuses for the young not to be productive.

                      I’ve discussed charter schools in NYC that led to many black students being accepted to college. Without those schools, many would have ended up on the streets, but you seem totally disinterested.

                      The worst enemy of a child starting life is hearing what you have to preach. It is pure racism and leads to excuses and bad behavior.

                      Let me provide a few articles below on what your type of rhetoric has caused, black anti-Semitism and violence. That is something strange because Jews were supporters of racial justice during the days of MLK. Some of them were killed, nonetheless, anti-Semitism is strong in the black community. This type of dangerous racism extends to Asians, Latino, and other groups. Such attitudes stigmatize blacks who have worked hard and achieved success in medicine, law, economics, business, etc. You are more interested in tearing things down than building them up.

                      Black on Jewish Violence Marks the New New Anti-Semitism
             › 8240 › black-on-jewish-violence-marks-the-new-new-anti

                      BLM’s aggressive tactics and rhetoric have led to attacks on Jews

                      33% of those arrested for antisemitic crimes in NYC were black, 60% …

                      Hate crimes surge in NYC, attacks on Jews almost double

                      NYC antisemitic crimes up nearly 300% in January, latest involves Jewish man ambushed from behind
                      15 hate crimes against Jewish people reported in January, NYPD says

                    4. Out of curiosity, I read your link about BLM leading to attacks on Jews, an opinion piece in the New York Post. That you accept this while denying so much shows me what I’m working with.

                      You have yet to provide an example, maybe checking the definition before writing will assist you?

                    5. Enigma, I don’t accept it and try not to embrace it. The article is a piece of evidence that I place in a large box that is very full while I look for evidence to the contrary, which is slim. I don’t doubt BLM has done some good things and that there are some good people at BLM, but I have to note the destruction and hate we see from BLM. You refuse to accept the bad with the good of BLM or provide evidence to the contrary, which “shows me what I’m working with.”

                      So far, you haven’t responded adequately to the racism surrounding me. It doesn’t seem that you know very much about racism.

                    6. An anecdote is not evidence, but as their numbers mount, they become evidence. That is why the early claims of BLM not being violent were at first accepted. The evidence has mounted when BLM is repeatedly in the wrong place at the wrong time.

                      That arsonist watching the building burn isn’t known to be an arsonist until seen at almost all unexplained fires.

                      I am still waiting for you to respond to my claims of racism so we can compare that racism to your own. Suddenly you walk away from your question because I don’t think you have a good understanding of what racism is.

                    7. Your “example” is not what you think. Until you provide a specific example instead of saying I experienced general things. It can’t be addressed.

                    8. What is your example? So far, nothing. I gave you some examples based on the people closest to me. You didn’t respond because those examples made you seem desperately petty.

                      I don’t want to state the awful things many races face. I will, but first you have to demonstrate significant racism against yourself.

                    9. Your example is asking everyone for their experiences but forgetting about providing your own. Then you blame the question on trolling.

                      You have not faced significant discrimination but wish to gain the benefits and sympathies of a discriminated group. Many people on this blog of all races have faced more discrimination than you. You are a race hustler who cannot answer the questions he asks of others.

                      I’m waiting to see how your experiences of racism hold up against mine. They include slavery, death, starvation, incarceration, beatings, etc. You can’t handle the truth.

                    10. “. . . to present an example . . .”

                      His belligerent demand for a “personal example” is textbook ad hominem — as in: “Unless you have personal experience [of what, he knows not], then I can reject your judgment and arguments.”

                      Just ignore his irrational demands.

                    11. Most recent example which I read here 15 minutes ago,

                      “Quit slandering your betters, black Nazi. Patrick Henry didn’t insist on the Bill of Rights J-U-S-T for defended his country and his loved ones from black murderers, but for ALL of the reasons why free men would want to be armed and dangerous. It’s incontrovertible that America would be way Way WAY better off than it is today, if only the South hadn’t imported so many Africans, and YOU are Exbihit A. Why don’t you go back to Africa”

                      Complements of Mont Salvat

                    12. That is what this bullsh!t is all about? You should be ashamed of yourself. I think you should remember the racist remarks on this blog directed to various groups. You are too self-centered.

                      What you are telling us is that you have never been subject to significant racism and the racism you have faced is less than the challenges seen by other races, including caucasians. You just don’t get it, MLK, character over color.

                      I know what racism is, and I know it up close. You seem to have escaped it and never learned its meaning.

                    13. Oh enough of the blinders on your eyes, Enigma. Here’s a catalog of Leftist racial discrimination against Asians. If you read it, you’ll see Leftist discrimination against whites, too, all of whom have to score higher to get in college than their blacker counterparts. Spare us the whining. The Left has mascots and picks societal winners based on race among other illegal things. Deal with it.


                    14. I don’t doubt discrimination against Asian Americans, even in admissions. Assuming (which may or may not be a stretch) that you agree that Black people didn’t create the discrimination, ask yourself, “Who did and why?” Discrimination against Asians, Black people, and other minorities all accrue to the benefit of white people. Minorities are like crabs in a barrel, pitted against each other while white people roll on.

            3. That is a ridiculous position. Personal anecdotes are irrelevant. Court evidence is what matters and its overwhelming and admitted by our Leftist academics.

              1. “I wasn’t getting examples anyway . . .”

                Without a valid definition, *how* do you know whether something is or is not an example of a concept?

                Mystic insight? Ethnic feelings?

          1. He’s not dumb. He’s hustling for his race. Of course he must change word meanings and insist that affirmative action is not racist against whites, when it obviously is.

            But someone thought to use the word “systemic” as if there is anything like it in the US now. It’s systemic, alright. Every possible advantage is being given to minorities and every blame for their ineffectual usage of it is being blamed “systemically” on whitey.

            Now look at how many times the guy has commented here, desperately trying to convince everyone of how racist whitey is and how downtrodden blacks are.

            Its ridiculous on its face.

        1. It’s about being denied entry because you are white or Asian. You must have scored real low on reading comprehension.

          1. You, you, you, how have you been discriminated against? Your perception that white people are losing out because affirmation action leaves only 80-85% of applications for white people (who don’t make up that percentage of the population) is laughable. What is your example?

            1. EIB,

              See below.

              “Rhetorically, sealioning fuses persistent questioning—often about basic information, information on easily found elsewhere, or unrelated or tangential points—with a loudly-insisted-upon commitment to reasonable debate. It disguises itself as a sincere attempt to learn and communicate. Sealioning thus works both to exhaust a target’s patience, attention, and communicative effort, and to portray the target as unreasonable. While the questions of the “sea lion” may seem innocent, they’re intended maliciously and have harmful consequences.”


              1. I don’t go looking for you to troll. I only respond to some of your responses to me. If you think I’m trolling you, you’ll find if you stop asking questions or making statements to me, you won’t hear from me again.

              2. Ray, thank you for that reference. I went further and found the comic that they say is the originator.


                ATS or Anonymous the Stupid is the most adept at ‘Sealioning.’ If one wants to understand what the trolls on the blog are doing, the article you posted is a great explanation. As the sea lionizer says: “I have been unfailingly polite, and you two have been nothing but rude.”

                That is their objective, so there is no problem fulfilling what they want by being rude in advance.

    2. “I know of no Black person . . .”

      I know of no White person who has not experienced the racism of affirmative action, CRT, “diversity.”

      That’s what happens when the Left keeps pushing a tribalist ideology.

        1. “[Y]our response suggests you don’t know what racism is.”

          That’s laughable, coming from the person, who though asked countless times, still cannot define “racism.”

            1. “My definition won’t be your experience.”

              Translated into English: “I have no idea what the concept “racism” means. But I’m going to use it, anyway, because it gives me carte blanche to play the victim, and to smear my opponents and America. (Oh, and to demand handouts.)”

              “Ethnic privilege” is a perversion of justice. “Ethnic definitions” are an assault on the logic of language.

              1. Translation: I am making a claim that everyone of my race is being discriminated against but because I want to dodge providing an example, I want to change the discussion.

            2. enigma——–I’ve told you before about my black boyftiend in DC whose parents would not allow me past the front door of their home because I was white. Guess what that’s called? (Hint: you’re obsessed with it)
              And for today’s Daily Double: the boyfriend told me that his parents “hated” me because I was white. And what’s that called? If you answered “racism”, you win a Chrysler Cordoba!
              Thanks for playing!

              1. I don’t disagree with you. It may be that they hated a white person was dating their Black son as opposed to hating you because you were walking down the street. I haven’t denied that racism exists and that Black people can be guilty of it. I will say that systemic racism requires the power to impose it on people across the board and I can’t think of an example where Black people have been guilty in America of systemic racism.

                1. Enough already, Enigma. You ask for personal experience from everyone. I will give you the personal experiences of those I love and loved. I will forget those of the same generation I could never love because they were killed before I could ever meet them. How about the experiences other than death, such as, slavery, starvation, beatings, attempted murder, and multiple incarcerations.

                  How many people does that include in your family who you touched and loved? Did any of that happen to you or your parents? No? Then what do you know about racism? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

    3. I believe he was referring to “racism to obstruct his path…”. In a multi-ethnic multi-identity country such as the US nearly everyone has personally experienced incidental bigotry of one kind or another. The question is whether they have been denied opportunities because of their race, religion, nationality or other identity. Blacks today benefit from preferences in admissions, hiring, retention and promotion. I am confident that no opportunity was denied Kendi because of his race. Quite the contrary.

      1. You obviously have no idea of the experiences of minorities in this country. Not that obstacles can’t be overcome, but your belief he or anyone else hasn’t experienced them is misguided.

        1. “You obviously have no idea of the experiences of minorities in this country.”

          I know the experiences of this country’s most maligned minority — the individual of talent and achievement.

    4. “I know of no Black person including Candace Owens and Clarence Thomas that hasn’t experienced racism. None!”

      I don’t know one member of my family that hasn’t experienced death or racism. I don’t know any religious Jews who walk down the streets in NYC that haven’t considered they might be mugged, most frequently by a black person. However, I don’t blame the race. I blame the stupidity of those that promote racism and violent behavior. That stupidity extends to those who appear to be successful and lawful people that promote hate.

  5. Kendi won’t give his brat a white doll, but he’s just fine teaching her to hate, Kendi — born into a middle class family in Queens, NY, attended private Christian schools from 3rd-8th grade, and has no educational credentials except some silly degrees in a non-discipline called African American Studies. The guy sailed through life with no discernable racism to obstruct his path from middle class Queens to academia. Yet, he has become the biggest race hustler and hate-spreader in the country. He must serve a purpose to the wealthy, however, or the MSM wouldn’t keep hauling him out whenever they need some pithy quotes to bash one of the Amendments the Left hates so much.

  6. What continues to mystify me is how these incoherent fanatics are placed with institutions of learning and are allowed access to the minds of students? It is one thing to proffer theories based on research that is rational and understandable, but to allow agenda driven people of questionable soundness of mind and/or ability to produce gobble-dee-gook and funnel it into naïve minds is beyond me. Affirmative action was not meant to allow the most radical fringe a leg up in order to foment chaos and mis-information,

    1. In 1967, I turned down a full scholarship to BU so I could work my way through Boston College. Best decision I ever made. Even then, a group of Harvard wannabees with inflated opinions of themselves.

    2. Carman says:

      “It is one thing to proffer theories based on research that is rational and understandable, but to allow agenda driven people of questionable soundness of mind and/or ability to produce gobble-dee-gook and funnel it into naïve minds is beyond me.”

      You have described Trumpism perfectly.
      Well done!

      1. That is because you misunderstand Trumpism and support Marxist ideology. You don’t understand free markets, no illegal immigration, no drugs across the border, no wars, a good economy and rule of law. If you understood those things you would be a strong supporter of Trump policy.

        1. Trump “policy” as opposed to Trump himself? Ah so. Trumpists see the writing on the wall and are preparing to throw Trump “under the bus.”

          “We never really liked Trump, just his policies!”

    3. ” Affirmative action was not meant to allow the most radical fringe a leg up in order to foment chaos and mis-information,”

      The hope for affirmative action was to prevent excluding a large percentage of people from jobs/admissions/contracts that previously excluded them. The percentage quota was relatively small and never exceeded by much. It was actually more of a cap than a entryway but it was better than nothing.

  7. In my opinion, Ibram X. Kendi is a irrational anti-white racist, yes a racist, and absolutely everything that he says should be put in that context and taken with extreme skepticism.

    It seems to me that the people that spout these kind of anti-2nd Amendment and anti-Constitution arguments are out to do three things:

    1) Socially demonize everything white people have ever done, including the creation of the United States of America.

    2) Socially demonize the Constitution and relegate it to being a quaint anecdote of archaic history and completely useless for modern times.

    3) Fundamentally change the USA and turn it into a totalitarian state.

    Racist like Ibram X. Kendi have been given a prominent academic soapbox to proclaim their irrational nonsense as “fact” when in fact they should be relegated to being one of those social outcast lunatics screaming their irrational nonsense on the street corner. Stupidity has become way to politically correct for the political left and given way too much prominence as long as it sort of fits in the narrow hive mindedness of social justice warriors and Democratic Party progressivism.

    1. Witherspoon, you’re a bit too quick on judging Ibrahim. The idea that that the 2nd amendment was put in the constitution does have roots in states having an interest in keeping slaves.

      Slave owning states wouldn’t have agreed to ratify the constitution if they didn’t have the rights guaranteed in the 2nd amendment which dealt with state militias. They needed the militias to keep slave rebellions in check at the time and they were becoming a problem as the slave population kept growing.

      Slave owning states were also fearful of the fact that states that were abolishing slavery made it more difficult to keep their slaves in line. There’s a lot historical references to this.

      “ Bogus emphasizes that many of the arguments dealt with “militia” issues. But Bogus adds a fact that wouldn’t necessarily occur to you. In the slave states, the militias also served the function of slave patrols. The militia was available for military operations, but its biggest function was to police the slaves, intimidate the slaves and make clear to the slaves that any effort at a slave rebellion would be met with overwhelming deadly force — armed force — gun force.”

      “ The weird dependent-clause reference at the beginning of the Second Amendment is probably the most famous mention of militias in the Constitution, but that wasn’t written yet. Instead, the Constitution said that Congress was empowered “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress…”

      This article gives anyone interested a very compelling argument that the way we see the 2nd amendment today is not what it was when it was being considered. Former slaves were not allowed to own guns, yet we argue today that it was all about everyone having that right.

  8. Okay.
    So what?
    Today, as it is now, people of all races can buy guns. For that matter, during the 2020 Summer of Love, fiery but mostly peaceful protests, gun sales went up to record levels.
    And minorities to include women, made up 40% of first time buyers according to NSSF. Why? People looked around at what was going on, felt the need for self-defense.
    Good on them!
    I encourage everyone whom can pass a NCIS background check (that would exclude Hunter Biden) to buy a firearm and get formal firearm training.
    Then practice, practice and practice so more.

    Think of it this way, a armed person is a citizen. And unarmed one is a subject . . . or you could say slave.
    (Disclaimer: I am not white)

    1. To add: Mr. Kendi, gun grabbers, and the Dems would have us all unarmed, as subjects . . . and slaves.
      Each and every one of us, to include minorities and women.

  9. Republicans have been spreading BS history of the 2A for decades. I guess they can dish it but not take it.

      1. The notion that 2A was meant to provide an individual the right to guns (and that the motivation is to defend against the government) is fiction.

        1. GettingSlammedSammy:

          “The notion that 2A was meant to provide an individual the right to guns (and that the motivation is to defend against the government) is fiction.”
          Yep, your legal interpretation trumps SCOTUS, Madison and years of scholarship. What color are the unicorns in your world, Sammy?

        2. The notion that 2A was meant to provide an individual the right to guns…is fiction.

          Damn right it’s fiction. It doesn’t provide the right, it secures the right. And not just guns, but any means necessary for self-defense.

        3. I suppose that when framing the Constitution the power shift created by a federal army had nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment. Of course, that would only be in your world where history is non-existent. (Federalist 46)

          Do you know who the anti-Federalists were? I suppose not.

  10. It all makes sense when you understand that, like Big Brother, they are trying to re-write history to fit a political agenda

  11. Clinically Prof. Kendi has some significant issues. Such unbridled hate must spring from somewhere. He certainly had a privileged upbringing with educated parents and private schools. He was born in 1982 long after the civil rights revolution of the 1960’s and yet his hate is almost like it never happened yet it still continues. His willful ignorance and statements suggest a malevolence I have rarely seen. It seems all he says starts with his hate and all other events and experiences tumble down into the hopper of his mind and come out colored by that hate.
    One thing I would add that is not covered in the discussion today is the massive investment in resources given to the immigrant invasion through our very porous borders. While I have always supported immigration, this invasion has stretched resources of the social services to the breaking point. Resources that our long present African American community could have used to good effect themselves. Instead they have just been pushed further down the line and I have detected some real resentment about that fact. I think their community has pointed that out and been ignored. Resources all finite. I think we owe a great deal more to our African American brothers and sisters than a mass of new people, certainly at the levels we are seeing now.

  12. The Marxist who wishes to reread and pervert American history to his advantage. Note he never mentions black propensity toward crime with guns. Why do these universities host all these bogus departments and their “professors”?

    1. “The Marxist who wishes to reread and pervert American history to his advantage.”

      Yep. Such rewriting (i.e., fabrication) is their meaning of the word “critical” in Critical Race Theory. Ditto for countless other academic uses of the word “critical.”

  13. Maybe its just me, but I find it difficult to consider serious anyone who changes their name to such bizarre words. The dude’s parents are named Larry and Carol Rogers.
    Ridiculous, but it appears some people are impressed by this.

  14. I’d be the first to say that guns were essential and played many roles at the time the Second Amendment was adopted. If Turley’s argument is that the Second Amendment wasn’t strictly race-based, I’d agree. He goes too far by citing the percentage of Black people that own guns without recognizing that Black people, even free ones were denied gun ownership during much of American history. It isn’t just a phenomenon of the 18th Century. When Black Panthers showed up with guns at the California state house in 1967 (Just like white people did in Michigan in 2020) an amazing coalition including Republicans, Democrats, the NRA, and Ronald Reagan got together to pass the Mulford Act which was used almost exclusively to take guns from Black people. Michigan considered action and still allowed guns inside the statehouse until after Jan. 6 when, well you know what happened though most of you are deniers. Patrick Henry was concerned about controlling slaves. On most plantations, slaveowners were greatly outnumbered by people that didn’t want to be there. Slave patrols (well-regulated militias) were essential not only to maintaining a way of life but life itself. America feared revolt from slaves and most every time a revolution happened anywhere in the world, they passed new laws to ban reading and writing for the enslaved and banned guns. The Second Amendment wasn’t just about slave control, but in many parts of the country it was the main thing which is why Patrick Henry and others blocked the Constitution without the assurance they could keep their guns.

    1. Funny not one mention of the word “black” in the Mulford Act. Tad sensitive aren’t we? Oh and I doubt people trembled in fear of slave revolts. There was never a successful one until the Union troops showed up.

      1. And the word slavery is never mentioned in the Constitution yet it exists throughout. What is your argument? Are you saying the Mulford Act wasn’t a reaction to the Black Panthers with (legally-owned) guns? Are you saying it wasn’t almost exclusively used against Black gun owners? Or are you limited to saying it didn’t mention Black?

        As far as successful slave revolts, one could argue the Haitian Revolution which sent America into shock waves. You could also argue they ultimately lost because they had to pay France so much they were kept poor forever. America (Thomas Jefferson) also implemented embargos and bans against Haiti. South Africa could be cited though they faced the weight of the western world that was exploiting their resources. In America, if success means they ultimately won against a nation willing to marshal all of its resources against them, then no but the Nat Turner Rebellion ended with 60 white people dead, there was the German Coast Uprising, had Denmark Vesey been successful every white person in Charleston might have been killed. After Nat Turner, every white person that owned a slave was looking at them with a side-eye so yes, people trembled in fear of a slave revolt. Not that slaves would take over the entire country, but that their own life was at risk. What part of that do you doubt?

        1. “And the word slavery is never mentioned in the Constitution yet it exists throughout. What is your argument?”
          Were I you (and I’m not) I’d check out the Thirteenth Amendment, Sec. 1 and the Fifteenth Amendment Sec.1 one more time for another reference to slavery as “servitude.”


          Are you saying the Mulford Act wasn’t a reaction to the Black Panthers with (legally-owned) guns? Are you saying it wasn’t almost exclusively used against Black gun owners? Or are you limited to saying it didn’t mention Black?”

          Is the RICO Act discriminatory against Italians? No, like the Mulford Act it is race neutral though Italian-American organized crime was certainly on the minds of the legislators. Thus, the Mulford Act’s application was universal and compliance required a license that anyone could apply for from the government. RICO offered no such releif. This disparate impact notion is pure horse manure (like Roe) since any law can be analyzed in terms of its impact on one group vis a vi another. Blacks are overrepresented as murder defendants. Are murder laws discriminatory? White collar crime is almost exclusively a Caucasian crime? Are those laws discriminatory against whites? Mulford was clearly a reaction to a violent gang of black Marxists carrying guns and making folks uncomfortable. The state repealled open carry. So, what? So did New York. Society has the right to try and protect itself from potential acts of violence. When they go too far, the courts step-in. Interestingly, I can’t find where the Mulford Act was ever challenged as a recial disriminatory enactment. Maybe you can.


          “In America, if success means they ultimately won against a nation willing to marshal all of its resources against them, then no but the Nat Turner Rebellion ended with 60 white people dead, there was the German Coast Uprising, had Denmark Vesey been successful every white person in Charleston might have been killed. After Nat Turner, every white person that owned a slave was looking at them with a side-eye so yes, people trembled in fear of a slave revolt.”
          Nat Turner was executed along with 50 or so others; the German Coast Uprising (Andry’s Rebellion) ended up with 88 dead slaves and their heads on pikes – a horrific scene that pacified Louisiana for decades. “If” is a big word and Haiti is a world away.

          So again where does Mulford say stand for aganst everyday black people? And, by the way, don’t facts matter?

          1. The topic Turley was defending was that the Second Amendment wasn’t racist at a time where almost all Black people couldn’t on guns. The Mulford Act was just a more recent instance. Your suggestion that because it didn’t say Black meant the application was universal is ridiculously disingenuous. It’s like saying Stop & Frisk, which only ever took place in minority communities wasn’t racist.
            That America feared slave revolt is obvious from all the laws they passed immediately after hearing of one or the attempt.

            1. Enigma:

              Okay then RICO is anti-Italian. Where’s my reparations from the black legislators who passed it? The Victim Game is fun!

              1. What law in America (I know you will want to say the Clinton Crime Bill but you’d be wrong) was ever passed by Black legislators. They may have supported Legislation but never have they ever passed legislation on their own.

                1. “What law in America (I know you will want to say the Clinton Crime Bill but you’d be wrong) was ever passed by Black legislators. They may have supported Legislation but never have they ever passed legislation on their own.”

                  I never owned slaves and you never picked cotton, yet you stand to gain and I stand to lose. Forgive me for not caring too much about the parliamentary plight of the black legislators who “oppressed” me.

    2. I have little doubt that slave-owners liked the idea of gun ownership, but at the same time, such effects on the passage of the Second Amendment due to those fears were infinitesimal.

        1. Enigma, one can be silly and pick their pet peeve while complaining that men like Patrick Henry liked or didn’t like their ideas. I don’t want to deal with silliness or interpretations of history without merit. Patrick Henry was an outspoken anti-Federalist. He believed the federal government would have too much power. He was a major player in pushing for a Bill of Rights.

          He owned slaves, yet stated that it wasn’t right. That was a conflict that many of the founders had. Society and social norms move slowly, something many are caught up in even today. You can chastise him for owning slaves, and If he were alive today, he would agree with you. Hypocrisy exists in all men. Some will move slowly for change towards the better. Others, based on bitterness and resentment, will move backward instead of moving forward or remaining still. I believe he was more of the forward moving type despite his ownership of slaves.

        2. Quit slandering your betters, black Nazi. Patrick Henry didn’t insist on the Bill of Rights J-U-S-T for defended his country and his loved ones from black murderers, but for ALL of the reasons why free men would want to be armed and dangerous. It’s incontrovertible that America would be way Way WAY better off than it is today, if only the South hadn’t imported so many Africans, and YOU are Exbihit A. Why don’t you go back to Africa if it’s so morally superior as you pretend you are? It proves you’re a liar that you don’t. You luxuriate in the abundance created by the white man while hating your benefactor to the devil. Because you are the devil’s own.

          Oh, and by the bye, the white man’s abundance is founded on the white man’s capital, not the black man’s labour. Both flipping burgers and picking cotton is Stone Age labour — hunting and gathering; — in fact, it’s EASIER than that. The total difference between the Stone Age and Western civilisation consists of capital not labour. What two hands standing on two feet can do by itself hasn’t changed in the last 1,000,000 years, while capital has advanced tremendously just in my lifetime. It keeps MacDonalds’ freezer stocked and supplied the mechanical mills of Manchester with cotton grown on the opposite side of the Atlantic Ocean. It’s why 100 hours of unskilled Stone Age labour can today be traded for a smartphone with otherworldly capabilities that you don’t begin to comprehend the workings of and couldn’t possibly create on your own. (And skilled labour is merely skill at operating capital instruments.)

          Got that, Beelzebub? See that you don’t forget it, Mephistopheles.

  15. I think Harriet Tubman was always strapped. She carried a joint as she helped slaves escape via the Underground Railroad: “Fact: Harriet Tubman carried a small pistol with her on her rescue missions, mostly for protection from slave catchers, but also to encourage weak-hearted runaways from turning back and risking the safety of the rest of the group. Tubman carried a sharp-shooters rifle during the Civil War.” (

    1. And what does that have to do with his post? Trying to hijack the thread for your own purposes – again?

      1. Whig98,

        There is nothing in the civility rule which prohibits it. You should try it sometime.

        1. “those elements [of a crime] haven’t been shown.”__Professor Jonathan Turley

    2. That is true. Certain people have strong opinions as to how others should act. Others can have strong opinions of how those same people should have acted in different circumstances. We all have such strong opinions. But what the J6 committee is looking for is a crime.
      Turley responded clearly and concisely, “those elements [of a crime] haven’t been shown.”

      Bracketed words not Turley’s.

  16. One of the difficulties in writing a blog is the prevalence of lefty idiots who don’t come to learn, but to argue that that Turley needed to say something different.

    Unfortunately these lefties have both unlimited time and abundant energy.

    What they lack are brains.

    1. “but to argue that that Turley needed to say something different.”

      Not at all. I am posting what Turley DID say about yesterday’s hearings in case you missed it. I’m sure you want to hear his opinion.

      No need to thank me! Just doing my civic duty.

      1. Jeff fails to mention that Turley said elements of any crime were missing. He noted the shortcoming of people like Tribe for not recognizing that. He would also fault Jeff if he knew Jeff existed and had any value.

        1. Svelaz,

          Thanks for posting this. I read the first couple of paragraphs before I wanted to just say that I wrote my last post to you before I had seen this Hill article! Kinda reiterates what I was thinking about Turley’s attitude towards Trump. He’ll hold his nose and defend Trump like a good defense lawyer should, but his being a NeverTrumper will not go over well with the Trumpists here!

        2. Svelaz,

          This article should get a lot of pushback from the Trumpists here when Turley posts it. It’s the closest he has come to acknowledging that Trump’s conduct is bordering on criminal. Trumpists here tend to ignore Turley’s criticism because they don’t want to hear us say, “I told you so.” They would rather skulk away from this blog than admit that they were wrong about Turley.

          This passage is interesting:

          “Trump may have been delusional or dishonest in siding with one team over the other. The committee has portrayed “Team Crazy” as a clown parade — but a clown parade does not make a criminal conspiracy. For a strong federal case, the charge would have to be based on proof that Trump believed these legal and factual claims were meritless. Not probably meritless but entirely, knowingly meritless. (A Georgia grand jury is looking into the separate possibility of state election fraud violations.)”

          There can be hardly any doubt that Trump *knew* these election allegations were meritless. I would wager that a jury would find it hard to swallow that Trump believed otherwise given the majority of people telling him that there is no evidence of widespread fraud. If he didn’t know it, it’s because he didn’t want to know it, but willful blindness is no defense.

          “Trump has long used litigation as a business and political cudgel, often advancing weak legal claims. He has been criticized for treating the law as endlessly malleable. The Democrats themselves have supplied Trump with this best defense. They have often portrayed him as a megalomaniac who could not accept that he lost the election. They offered pseudo-scientific accounts of the “shared psychosis” of Trump and his supporters in refusing to admit defeat. To bring a charge over such a challenge could criminalize future challenges when one party claims that the other lacked a good-faith basis.”

          Claiming an electoral challenge lacked a good-faith basis is not the same as proving it! Here, there IS proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

          It’s apparent that Turley would accept a jury’s verdict against Trump. What defines someone as a Trumpist is that they won’t.

Comments are closed.