Thom Hartman: The 2nd Amendment was ratified to help preserve slavery.

[branford]

47. I'm certainly not going to defend slaveholders . . .

but focusing on the fringe argument that the Second Amendment was ratified primarily to protect these slaveholders, a position not even supported by most liberal scholars who support firearm restrictions, is both irrelevant to the current political discussion and will convince few, if any, gun rights supporters of the good-faith of your position.

I am not a fervent gun rights absolutist, and do not even own, nor want to own, a gun. I even support certain restrictions such as universal background checks (however the devil is always in the details with any legislation). If you want to gain the backing of many moderate and liberal (and even some conservative) gun rights supporters, an entirely realistic goal, hyperbole will only have the opposite effect.

As I mentioned earlier, I'm a trial attorney (commercial litigation and insurance) in NYC. I regularly see the vestiges of discrimination in the justice system. If guns disappeared today, this discrimination would not substantially diminish. The fight for equality is, at best, only very tangentially related to the gun rights debate in 2013 and beyond.

I have no doubt about your sincerity in the fight against inequality and discrimination. However, the gun rights debate will only serve to distract you (and me) from far more laudable and achievable goals.

Lastly, although I was somewhat facetious in my prior comment, I do honestly believe that it is better for potential minority victims to be legally armed with the best tool available to defend themselves, rather than meekly submit to violent bigots without even a fighting chance.