Larry King Calls For Repealing 2nd Amendment: It Was Written to Stop 'Slave Uprisings'

[DonViejo]

by Rachel Dicker | 12:18 pm, March 30th, 2018

Larry King has weighed in on former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens‘ assertion that student protesters should “demand a repeal of the Second Amendment.”

“It’s poorly written,” King said of the amendment to TMZ. “What did they mean by ‘militia’?”

“You know [the people] who signed the Second Amendment were southern senators so they could ward off slaves’ uprisings,” King added. “Read the history.”

When the man behind the camera balks and asks King to briefly explain the history, he said: “Eventually it won in other areas but southern senators started it [for that reason].”

Another off-camera man offered that they wanted to protect themselves against black people, and King said, “Yeah, that’s correct… And the NRA is the worst.”

more
https://www.mediaite.com/online/larry-king-calls-for-repealing-2nd-amendment-it-was-written-to-stop-slave-uprisings/

[MontanaMama]

1. Here we go!!!!

Isn’t this something?

[Igel]

2. Yeah, did read the history.

More than King, apparently.

"The Second Amendment" was passed "so they could ward off slaves' uprisings" is like saying "ships were invented to attack coastlines." Now, that's surely one purpose that can be read into the origin, but it's not like it's the only or even most likely reason. The slave patrols weren't the militia. And there's no suspicion that the federal government was going to interfere in local slave patrols.

There's a large body of work on this topic, looking at scores of documents from the late 1600s N. America and Britain, discourse on it under the British in the 18th century and from the time when the amendment was being introduced with others, then edited, then ratified in numerous states.

This is retconning for current political rhetoric.

[Hoyt]

6. Guns for uprisings was also a big concern of the slave states. Pretty much same nowadays when you

get right down to it.

[Hoyt]

3. The gunners ain't gonna like that, Larry.

[bobbieinok]

4. How OLD is he?

[DonViejo]

10. 84 years November 19, 1933

[gibraltar72]

5. Thom Hartmann has been saying that for many many years.

[Major Nikon]

8. Which is almost certainly where King got the idea

Hartmann has very little in the way of credentials on the subject and nobody who does seems to agree with him.

[FarCenter]

7. I would have thought that fighting Indians was a more important state militia function

Following statehood, California State Militia became the parties engaged in most of the early conflicts with the Indians within its boundaries before the American Civil War. The state would seek compensation from the United States federal government for the cost of the operations and for the "depredations" of the Indians, that would not be settled for decades. Often the local miners or other settlers, impatient at the bureaucratic delay or political opposition involved with organizing militia companies, organized locally to operate against the Indians.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Indian_Wars

In Minnesota, during the Sioux Uprising during the Civil War, militia units were raised and protected several forts.

The Thirteen Colonies had fought numerous battles with Indians prior to the Revolutionary War. Militia and provincial units fought in these wars, as well as small numbers of British troops.

[hack89]

9. What about all those Northern Senators?

why did they sign?

King is an idiot.

[moondust]

11. If you think about it,

how could slave owners and their patrols keep tens/hundreds/thousands of slaves from revolting or dashing off into the night without substantial firepower? Whips? Swords? Bowie knives? Wouldn't those require a sizeable army of full-time whip crackers/sword brandishers/knife throwers if you've got a hundred slaves closing in on the them or running in every direction? What happens when large numbers manage to overrun the patrol or escape? The slave economy collapses; game over.

Seems plausible even if not openly discussed as a safeguard to protect the slave economy. Putting it in the Constitution also protects it from simple legislative repeal.

[rwiliff]

12. RT

Russia Times Larry King?

[Retrograde]

13. Partially true

It was also written to protect militias fighting with Native Americans who wanted to keep the British settlers from encroaching unto their lands. And as gravy, it would protect militias along the border in case those states wanted to annex Canada or maybe the Spanish lands to the South and West.

[EX500rider]

14. "Southern Senators"? All 4 of them?

In the original 13 we had N/S Carolina and Georgia and Virginia...
Pretty sure the other 9 Colonies/States signed too.

[Retrograde]

15. MD and DE

were slave states until the 13th amendment passed. Slavery was still legal in NY and other states when the Constitution was ratifed.