Skip to main content

View Diary: Jon Stewart has 3 history professors rip apart Fox's Andrew Napolitano's slavery revisionism (152 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  None of which has anything to do with the fact (0+ / 0-)

    that there were no hostilities between the French and any colony south of Maryland. There were, of course, British forces under the command of Lieutenant-Colonel George Washington involved in starting the war at Jumonville, in what is now Pennsylvania.

    Back off, man. I'm a logician.—GOPBusters™

    by Mokurai on Wed Mar 12, 2014 at 02:36:31 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Still Doesn't Support Tom Hartmann's Claim (0+ / 0-)

      That the Second Amendment was for the benefit of southern plantation owners, when America had just emerged from the Revolutionary War and the French & Indian War.

      When the Constitution was being written, internal rebellions were very much on the mind of the framers, because Shay's rebellion had just occurred.  James Iredell of NC wrote about Shays Rebellion, but he made no mention of slave rebellions.

      Men are so necessarily mad, that not to be mad would amount to another form of madness. -Pascal

      by bernardpliers on Wed Mar 12, 2014 at 03:09:06 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  But guns made American-scale slavery feasible (0+ / 0-)

        The gun culture of the South rests on the myth of the white Christian Patriarch who owns property.  That contacts with slavery on so many levels that it's like a sick joke poisoning America's soul.  Proof?  Do you think blacks who aren't token right-wingers will ever be allowed to form armed militias in the future South?  An armed force representing actual black positions will always be labeled a terrorist force.  That's the invisible ink in the 2nd Amendment whether you like it or not.

        It's no wonder that Canadians have such a different history with guns than we do.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site