Previous Post
Next Post

The civilian disarmament movement is gathering pace and, especially, ferocity. We predicted this right from the git-go: anti-gunners and their media surrogates will paint gun owners as proto-terrorists. They did it in 2011 after the attack on Gabrielle Giffords with endless anti-Tea Party polemics and hysterical Hutaree hype. But there’s a new meme out there. Second Amendment supporters are racists. I know, right? How completely and utterly wrong could anyone be? Well, now that you asked, here’s an excerpt from Rika Christensen’s screed Far Right Poses As Much Danger To The U.S. As Radical Islam at . . .

They [the “extreme right”] also seem to view the Constitution as a static document, unchanging despite the way society has changed over the last 230 years, and want laws made and judges to rule based on the original intent of the document. Here’s the issue with that: When it comes to the 2nd Amendment (for example), the original intent of the amendment was to preserve slavery. The words, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State…” refer to the freedom of white men in the southern states to own slaves, and to police those slaves with their militias as they saw fit. The original intent was not to ensure the people’s freedom from a tyrannical government, which is what every gun-rights activist espouses today.

Given that slavery hasn’t existed here for more than 150 years, the original intent of the 2ndAmendment is not applicable to today’s society. The extreme right, however, would argue that we are becoming slaves of the government, if we aren’t already, with anecdotes and paranoia fueling their claims.

And, thus, become mass murderers.

Just in case there are some readers here who aren’t members of the pro-2A choir, I’d like to state that Ms. Christensen’s got it exactly backwards: gun control is racist.

In America, Southern Democrats created our country’s first gun control laws to subjugate—and then disenfranchise, terrorize, torture, rape and slaughter—African Americans. It’s right there in the Supreme Court’s McDonald decision, which relies heavily on gun control’s racist roots to justify its ruling.

In its modern, practical application, gun control leaves African Americans and Spanish-speaking Americans defenseless against criminal elements. More so than the white population. 

We know where Christensen got her “inspiration” for painting conservatives as proto-terrorists. The Combatting Terrorism Center think tank at West Point’s recently released report Challengers from the Sidelines: Understanding America’s Violent Far-Right.

But where did the Chicago-based “cyclist, skier, runner, animal rights and welfare advocate” get the bass ackwards idea that the Second Amendment was created by racists for racists?

Her fellow writer Nathaniel Downes’ polemic Founding Fathers’ Words Reveal 2nd Amendment Was… To Preserve Slavery? 

Asserting that the Second Amendment was created to protect state militias (ignoring the fact that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right guaranteed by the Bill of Rights), claiming that protecting slavery was the militias’ primary purpose, Downes concludes “The 2nd Amendment itself was purposefully designed to empower the states to manage and handle their slave patrols, their militias.”

When people call themselves patriots, or say they’re standing for what the founding fathers stood for when it comes to the 2nd Amendment, they are, in fact, doing nothing of the sort. Unless, of course, they’re arguing for the right to press people into involuntary, lifetime-indentured servitude, passed from parent to child in perpetuity. Or perhaps, that was, in fact, the plan all along.

If Downes’ argument wasn’t so preposterous I’d call it absurd. But here’s the thing: this is exactly the kind of “logic” the civilian disarmament movement will use to discredit those who seek to defend and extend their Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms.

Mark my words: it only gets worse from here.

[h/t DrVino]

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. Re-writing history is an old tactic. Telling out right lies is also an old tactic. These people are going to stop at nothing to subvert the constitution. Nothing is too dirty for them.

    It’s past time that we fight back just as hard and dirty. I would hate to think I sold out my grandkids futures because I was too proud to fight dirty.

  2. Yea, tell that to the New Englanders in the Minutemen or Green Mountain Boys and the Scots-Irish Pennsylvania militia of the era (groups not exactly known for being slave holders in the Revolutionary period). Anyone who tries to bring history into this has to contend with the fact that the Revolutionary leaders did not dispute the public’s right to bear arms. George Washington, even during the Whiskey Rebellion, did not attempt to disarm the population en masse.

    Good pic of John Brown. You do not mention that “Beecher’s Bibles” (aka Sharps carbines) kept Kansas from becoming a slave state.

  3. I’m getting so very sick of progressives re-writing history and trying to program our youth to hate the US and any right not immediately convenient.

    Any group exploiting the education system to put a slant on the developing views of children is abusive and irresponsible. Same goes for anyone trying to redevelop history.

  4. This article showed up on my Facebook feed from an acquaintance a couple hours ago. I filed it under “so much wrong that I don’t know where to start refuting it” combined with “too big a response for Facebook.” I’d point him to this post, but I’m not sure it’d even get read.

  5. If I recall correctly, didn’t the Constitutional Convention put into the document a sunset clause on Slavery, protecting the institution for only another 20 years? If they sowed the seeds to eventually end the practice, it makes no sense that slavery could have even been at the forefront of anyone’s mind when the 2nd amendment was introduced within the bill of rights later.

  6. I first saw this used by Damny Glover to, get this, Texas A & M students. Now why that ass hat was there I don’t know. But if you review the divider in least’s speech today he refers to and exacerbates the factions of this nation. Next stop Black gun owners are Uncle Toms. Like I said I think he used the Lincoln Bible because he feels he’s going to be the second president to have a civil war during his administration. This would lead to the discarding of the present Constitution, thus completing the transformation of the (not quite so) United States.

    • Danny Glover, I have a question for you:

      If you were a slave, would you wish for you and your wife to have a rifle and 20 rounds of ammo each?

      I’ll now turn the floor back to you, Sir.

    • I think Obummer sees himself as the new Lincoln and FDR. Personally, I think the man has a messiah complex and in his own way I think Obummer is as nutty as John McCain.

      • McWho? He still has to answer for that f’n McCain Feingold bill. It did nothing but give birth to Super PACS, limited our contribution rights, and restricted ads. That was bad legislation that helped get us where we are today. I sympathize about him being a POW. But I do not understand how being tortured and degraded for the eternity he was imprisoned gives a person a greater ability to govern, with all respect to Senator McCain. I was in the Air Force, never saw action , and can understand how combat vets might be offended. That is , on my child’s eyes, NOT my intent. I spent some time at Dover De. ’69-’71 and being in SAC, helped bring the fallen home. If that doesn’t affect you nothing will. BUT we are talking about governing, not service to country, above and beyond, which McCain most certainly did with great honor. A tremendous service man, and asset to the military? NO DOUBT! Senator? With respect, not his strongest suit.

  7. That’s funny, since the Constitution was also ratified by Northerners who were considering or had already enacted abolition.


    WARNING: Persistent flamers will be permanently banned. Please address each other respectfully.

  9. This is an actual Amendment and they are stomping all over it, adding as many restrictions as they can. Yet, the same governor that banned anything over 7 rounds wants to pass a bill that removes any restriction on abortions. He wants to make it a fundamental right, which would make it “untouchable” according to liberals. “This bill says that abortion is fundamental and thus untouchable – no regulations on abortion, ever. No parental notification for minors’ abortions, no limits on taxpayer funding of abortion, no limits on late-term abortions, no informed consent for pregnant women seeking abortion”

    So why is it the 2A which is a right can be restricted and isn’t untouchable as they claim rights should be? I am not pro-life or pro-choice, I can care less really, but these people make me sick with their double standards.


    • Because Libs love them sum baby killin! They’re absolutely fanatical about abortion. Liberalism is a stain upon humanity.

      • For every unborn child aborted, it equals one less potential point of resistance. Less children = less adults that just might care and say “Enough is Enough!” Part of the green movement is declaring “sustainable population” number far less than the existing population. Interesting thing is, the less people, the less force they would need to control a population.

        Yes… it boils down to a NWO one world, one government to rule them all conspiracy. Just don’t forget that conspiracy theory can be a good place to hide the truth, as most go unbelieved except by “kooks.”

  10. Correct me if I am wrong but wouldnt disarming us pave the way to our own indentured servitude? Even with our guns we are nearly there working for just enough money to keep the lights on.

  11. Poor Southerners (which was most of them) didn’t own slaves. The southerners in the mountain country owned few slaves. Even in the South the fear was of the very rich gentry owning vast amounts of land and slaves. In truth, a great fear leading up to the Civil War (the sources are widely available) was that the upper class would increasingly attempt to impose slavery on poor whites as well. Reports of the occasional white slave existed. The industry of “indentured servants,” (slaves for a term of years who could be beaten at will) was large in the middle and northern colonies. Ben Franklin and Washington both bought the contracts of these to clear forest land for farming. George Washington’s mother made her fortune in White Slaving. Militias to enforce slavery? Get real.

    • Indentured servitude was a contract to work for a period of time to pay off a large purchase – usually passage from Europe (or sometimes Asia) to America. When the time was up, you became a free citizen. Perhaps not nice (though not unreasonable for the time) but VERY different from chattel slavery.

      • You might want to study indentured servitude a bit more Stacy. Contracts were often extended illegally under the guise that the “servants” weren’t fulfilling their obligations. Think of the modern “human traffickers” with immigrants and otherwise on our borders and around the world.

        Chattel slaves while owned property were often treated better. They were worth more money, you gotta protect your investment ya know.

        “In America, Southern Democrats created our country’s first gun control laws to subjugate…”

        A lot of that was a reaction to Reconstruction laws and actions that often made slaves of southerners who had no voting rights, no self-protection rights all while dealing with carpetbaggers, victors looting the spoils of war.

        • You’re right, they tended to get “stop-lossed” and some lawyers made their name on those kind of cases, but I stand by my statement that it’s not equivalent to slavery. In those days landowners beat their hired hands, people beat their children, men beat their wives, pirates and highwaymen killed people for fun because robbing them wasn’t enough, etc ad nauseum. The point is that an indentured servant had freedom in their future, while slaves had a lifetime of unpaid labor, their wives and children sold away from them, and beatings or worse if they complained about it. Legally they could buy themselves out of slavery, but in most cases it was illegal or impossible due to their status to earn the money for that. And even a free black person in a free state had to fear gangs hunting “runaways”. None of that applied to indentured servants. Totally different experience.

    • That’s funny and all, but when people believe them and take their word as gospel, we have a problem.

      • That’s why I want them to keep digging. The more they talk the more they expose themselves. Over-the-top rhetoric destroys their credibility.

  12. Progressive Revisionist History…
    They started doing it slowly, under the radar in our public schools about 40 years ago by removing fundamental truths from our founders & founding documents from the curriculum as well as historical feats that rang too patriotic & replaced them with fallacies. America went from being a great liberator to people oppressed all over the world (we were on the right side of most conflicts) to the totally evil warmonger that does nothing but invade other nations to loot them of their oil & natural resources. The founders were demonized & portraid as a bunch of old, evil, rich, white, slave owners etc.
    Now we have that same generation raised on a lifetime of anti-Americanism & anti Christianism ready to hear this idiot spout such nonsense & actually accept it as fact.
    When I hear these progressive lunatics say such things I often wonder if they’re lying to suit their agenda or if they’re truly that stupid. Kind of like the now overused meme in the MSM calling the NRA ‘racists’ & ‘KKK’ members lately when it’s the EXACT OPPOSITE thing that’s true! NRA was created when the slaves were freed & needed to learn how to use their guns to protect themselves against the democrats strong-arm, the KKK.
    And hey — when did the Republican party…THE party of civil rights from fighting to free the slaves to ending segregation & fighting the dems for civil rights legislation become the ‘racist’ party & the Democrats, party of slavery, segregation & creators of the KKK become the ‘tolerant’ civil rights party?
    Amazing at how proficient the left has become at mixing up strong kool-aid for their useful idiots!

    • One of the problems with history is complexity. There is hardly ever an absolute claim that is legitimate. While America has stood on the right side of history many, many times, it has also supported dictators and tyrants. America is neither angelic nor satanic; it is a mix of greatness and of folly.

      The founding fathers were both brilliant and flawed. They were lovers of liberty and willing to risk their lives for freedom, but they also legally institutionalized slavery. It is wrong to ignore either their amazing contributions to the world or their problematic view of slavery, women’s rights, or the rights of the poor.

      You are correct that the Democratic party was the party of slavery and of discrimination, but that changed starting with FDR, and that old identity died with LBJ’s Great Society. He even stated that his legislation would lose the southern states for the Democrats for a generation, and he was correct. I am not sure what you mean by the Republicans ending segragation, but I can answer your question: When did the parties switch identities? About 1965.

      • Riiiiiight.

        And that’s why the last member of the KKK to serve in Congress was Robert Byrd, D-WV.

        • Yup, in the 1940s, but he later apologized for his stance, and he worked as an advocate for civil rights. The Democratic party was the party of racial intolerance for a huge swath of time (George Wallace was a Democrat when he said “In the name of the greatest people that have ever trod this earth, I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny, and I say segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever.”), but after the Civil Rights act of 1965, all that changed, and the Democratic party became associated with advancing minority rights. Look up Lee Atwater and the “Southern Srategy” to see how the change was manifest in the Republican party.

    • The problem is that progressives and leftists have a very multi-faceted understanding of history.

      This is unfortunately due to science. Liberals have an increased capacity for reason and empathy; conservatives, on the other hand, have enlarged amygdalae, the lizard fear-centre of the brain, responsible for cave man emotions and simple fight or flight fear and violent responses. Sorry guys it’s the truth. Maybe you should try meditation? It works for a lot of people with mental issues 🙂

      • Are you literaly the ghost of Lenin? Vlad, baby, most leftists use girlish emotion combined with a pseudo academic belief system that works on paper only. Most of the people in jail are liberals. You can find smart people on both sides of the spectrum but its the lib ideas that dont work and get people killed (over 120 million in the 20th century).

      • Lenin‘s ghost,
        You can post any “research” you like, but I can tell you, that after 42 years of living in the Seattle area, I know a thing or two about liberals. And the number one symptom is that every thing they do is based solely on emotion and not rational thought. It seems that no matter how terribly their ideas fail (which they always do) they just keep on pushing the same idea over and over, simply because it feel right. I have said this here before and I know it gets some panties in a wad, but the fact is, that liberals are the cause of all the problems the world has ever had in its entire history. They may have been identified by other names, (like Leninist) but the faulty thought process has always been the same and the results have always been the same.

        “The plans differ; the planners are all alike“
        Frederic Bastiat

  13. This… this is supposed to be satirical, right? Right?!
    “One cries when one is sad. For instance, others are stupid and that makes me sad.”

  14. “Mark my words: it only gets worse from here”

    I’m also an MRA ‘Men’s Rights Advocate’ which many here know full well 🙂 We’re quite familiar with the feminists and progressives’ personal character attacks designed to put you on the defense and intimidate you into silence, divide and conquer tactics, propaganda spread by Ms.-Information Magazine and others, etc. Personally, I don’t think the gun-grabbers will get far trying to re-paint the 2A as an Amendment to preserve slavery. If anything pushing the idea will just make the gun-grabbers look like bigger nerds to the majority of Americans.

  15. While I disagree with the central claim of the author’s, there are a few slivers of truth scattered in with the forest of nonsense. Militias were used in the 18th century to patrol for runaway slaves, to limit the clandestine meeting of slaves, and to dissuade slaves from attempting to escape. Does this mean that the 2nd was written to get slave owners to support the Constitution? Nope.

    • This is what gives the lies teeth. Sprinkle a few slivers of truth into the libtard jumbo stew, and set to boil with emotion.

  16. You really have to laugh at these clowns. The depth of their “scholarship” can be measured in angstroms.

  17. Centuries ago, when in a city, surrounded by the enemy and walls of which were about to be breached, the people would kill their own children so they don’t become slaves of those in power and control. Today, some “americans” are ready to give government, police, agencies a blank check to control the citizens. I can’t believe that these people are ready to make their children slaves of the encroaching system. End of guns will mean spread of corruption. Criminals will kill cops to get their guns. Then government will say that we’re not allowed on the street after dark because it is not safe for police. We will become totalitarian police state. I think, those Americans, who wants to change American basis should leave. Find yourself a country where you not allowed to have a gun and live there.

  18. If the intent of the Founders was to preserve slavery, was is there no mention of such “fact” in any of the briefs or decisions in Heller and McDonald, both cases which intensively reviewed the history of the Amendment? Gun control is always a tool of the tyrant; and the Founders were seeking to irradicate tyranny in the form of the government they created.

    • It was made illegal for slaves to possess guns, unless they were given special permission to Cary them by their owners. Yes, the founders of the country institutionalized slavery.

  19. This perversion of history cannot be allowed to pass unchallenged.

    The record is clear, unequivocal and easy to point out to anyone. Simply have them read the Dred Scott v. Sanford Supreme Court decision, in which it was litigated that black men have no rights recognized by the US Constitution because blacks were property, not men.

    In said decision, Taney makes explicit the notion that, if blacks were men, they would have the right to keep and bear arms.

  20. my wife showed this to me when one of her left leaning friends posted this bullshit on facebook and expected nobody to call her out. my wife did. and it was beautiful.

    historical revisionism at its finest.

  21. Can’t we start a petition to get Canada to annex everything from DC north along the eastern seaboard? Just let them have it…Hell we’ll throw in southern Cali for FREE! We have plenty of room down here in the south for decent people to live. Let the libs live in the Obama Province with rainbows and unicorns…and leave us alone!

  22. Thanks for the link to the McDonald decision. I read the courts opinion and Stevens dissenting opinion. Sadly, the importance of the 2nd amendment to the safety of freed blacks in the reconstruction era will never get air play. Some great quotes from that period in the majority opinion. I encourage everyone to read it. Reading Steven’s dissenting opinion helps outline the protectionist view point and reliance on shoddy logic and data. With today’s inaugural address and “Organizing for Action” debut, better read up and buckle up. Its going to get interesting.

  23. Nicely done with the link to one of the most notorious conservative supreme courts in history. Note how the dissent in that case completely annihilates the historical argument put forth by the majority?

    Thankfully we probably won’t have that conservative 5 bloc after another obama term so kiss your twisted history goodbye, just like your guns 🙂

    • You say most notorious conservative supreme courts. Does that mean all conservative supreme courts are notorious? Or just that conservatives are notorious? I would label a conservative court as a good court if it supported the constitution by it’s decisions.

      You think the history is twisted because it is inaccurate or because it disagrees with your worldview? Also, when you say “your guns” that means you are not a gun owner and since you wish to say good bye to guns you dislike those of us who do own guns. So my question is what the hell are you doing here? Just starting trouble?

  24. It’s really two sides of the same coin. Arms for the nobility, no arms for the serfs. Gun rights for the ruling class, gun control for the slaves. Back then, pretty much all laws served to perpetuate the racial caste system.

    • You got it.

      I don’t have any problem with accepting that there were “slave patrols” by the “militia,” to keep them in line.

      Nasty business, and a blot on our nation’s history.

      But these historical “revelations” are no reason to throw away the 2A — unless you want to make people slave again, to keep them in line.

  25. Based on historical commentary that I’ve read (and I don’t recall most of the details), the Founders were not united on the issue of slavery vs. freedom for all men. Eventually, they settled the issue by not directly addressing it one way or the other. Allegedly, some of the northern reps took the view believing slavery would end on its own in twenty to thirty years, and they needed the cooperation of the pro-slavery states to ratify the founding documents. If others have different facts please jump in to clarify this comment.

  26. What a great PsyOp article…a divide and conquer strategy if I ever saw one. More of the same ole shtick that “Gun Owners are Racists”.

    Anti-Gunners ignore the body of historic events that led to the inclusion of the right to bear arms initially in the English Bill of Rights and then the American Bill of Rights a century later.

    Our Second Amendment right to bear arms has its direct antecedent in the English Bill of Rights which compressed the various reasons for owning a firearm into a right as a result of the government’s efforts to disarm its citizens. Events in English history provided many of the seeds that would become the fruit that we know as our Constitutional rights, among them the right to bear arms.

    This and other rights must be openly acknowledged in order to prevent their suppression. These basic rights are not pulled out of thin air nor created to protect Slavery!

  27. in other news; some white people are racist, your white, therefore you’re racist. perfect hippy logic.

  28. Gun owners are not the “extreme right.” We are left, right, and center. We are Americans. We are everywhere.

  29. Who IS this nut? Gun control was instituted to disarm freed blacks. But NOOOOO… that’s not racist.

Comments are closed.