Photo from a Virginia 2A rally / Photo by Anthony Crider via (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/) Flickr

ABC is hosting a new program called “One Nation Under Fire” that aims to address rising rates of crime and violence in America. The show is supposedly about getting to the bottom of Americans’ current crime epidemic through a bipartisan lens. It is abundantly clear now after this most recent episode that the program is little more than provocative partisan hackery. 

The show started off with Joy Behar asking co-host Ana Navarro what her stance on the gun violence epidemic was. Navarro went into great detail about how the issue of gun violence is uniquely American. Navarro also took the time to hammer Republicans for taking donations and support from the NRA, claiming that the “Republican members of the legislature have got to get from under the grip of the NRA- which, today, is far from the club that started centuries ago.” and that “A lot of funding is coming from the gun manufacturers. It is a special interest group, and they are holding up any progress that could be made on this issue.

Behar then tossed the question over to Sunny Hostin, Hostin immediately reaffirmed the opinions of Navarro and would then claim that the the Second Amendment was created to protect the institution of slavery during the early years of America. Sunny Hostin said “The right to bear arms was designed to protect slavery, right? Our founding fathers and others, they wanted to be able to empower a local militia group to basically put down slave revolts and protect plantation owners.

The idea that slavery was the major influencing force the creation of the 2nd Amendment is ridiculous. The concept of allowing private citizens to keep arms in America predates not only the constitution but the very institution of slavery in the United States. The untamed wilds and lack of information about the new world was reason enough for America’s earliest settlers to bear arms of their own. The right to own firearms was even implemented in states that had little to no slaves. 

These claims by Hostin are echoed by a a New York Times article from 2018 where Op-ed writer Carl T. Bogus raises the question of if the institution of slavery influenced the 2nd Amendment. Bogus attempts in his article to connect the actions of one militia, a group that put down a slave revolt in South Carolina, to the use of the term militia in the text of the 2nd Amendment. This equally nonsensical argument completely disregards the actions of other militias(outside of major wars in America), although to Bogus’ credit he did address the implementation of militia’s in the revolutionary war. 

What both Sunny Hostin and Carl T. Bogus neglected to mention was how the 2nd Amendment was key in defending not only the rights but the lives of black Americans in the late 1800s and early 1900s. Some of America’s earliest acts of gun control were specifically targeted at black Americans. “Black Codes” barred free black Americans from owning firearms and carrying firearms, during the Jim Crow era purchase permit laws were aimed at keeping firearms out of the hands of black Americans who had just gained their freedom and had little money to spare, and discretionary-issue gun license policy was aimed at keeping guns out of the hands of not only black Americans but out of the hands of immigrants as well. Black Americans had to defend themselves with firearms from racial-supremacy groups like the Ku Klux Klan just after they had gained their freedom. Contrary to these claims, gun control was used to defend the institution of racism. 

As for Navarro’s claims about the NRA, historically the NRA was key in defending the rights of minorities when it came to the 2nd Amendment. The NRA was the first to defend minorities who were targeted by racist gun control laws. The NRA may not be the same NRA as it was back then, but to say that the organization is funneling in money from every direction and that they have a tight grip on policy in Washington is utter nonsense.  

It is not the NRA, gun lobbyists, or the 2nd Amendment that is preventing American from exploring a solution to violent crime, in fact it is quite the contrary, it is gun control activists who refuse to look at any other possibilities or solutions who stifle any productive discussion on America’s crime problem. Anytime the issue of crime, violent crime in particular, is brought up the gun control activists are back again with the same ideas, ideas that do not work and only serve to strip law abiding citizens of their God given rights. The issue of violent crime will never be addressed so long as these activists and politicians continue to keep their blinders on.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
32 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Skonk Diddly
Skonk Diddly
1 month ago

Cupid stunt.

Stephen Weiss
1 month ago

if you are trying to reduce your IQ watch the view..in ten minutes you’ll drop 20 points.

Arjay
Arjay
1 month ago
Reply to  Stephen Weiss

Just 20?

lbrac
lbrac
30 days ago
Reply to  Arjay

That’s if you only started with 25.

DOT-4
DOT-4
1 month ago

FYI , the first Martyr of the American Revolution was Crispus Attucks ( see copy of origninal ingraving below ) Killed 1770 in the Boston massacre , along with a 17 year old white man ! ………….. These people have No knowlage of History at all !

Boston Massacre.jpg
HarryS
HarryS
1 month ago
Reply to  DOT-4

Yes, they do. They are pathological liars. When it sounds like one is telling the truth, be on extreme alert as they put a spin on truth, making it a lie. A “half-truth” is a whole lie.

DOT-4
DOT-4
1 month ago

CRT at is best , fake , missleading ,, disinformation for the Ignorant masses to follow !

2@B.jpg
HarryS
HarryS
1 month ago
Reply to  DOT-4

The technology of the ARM, a traditional term for a weapon, is irrelevant. Whether a hunk of wood used as a cudgel, or a “phaser” (if such is ever developed), the second amendment forbids the national government from INFRINGING the right of the PEOPLE (not the state governments) to KEEP and to BEAR ARMS.
It also forbids the states from disarming those PEOPLE who compose the MILITIA that are subject to muster by order of the COMMANDER IN CHIEF of the Armed Forces of the United States.
The Congress could penalize state governments that refused to ban certain or all arms, thereby coercing the state legislatures into banning or restricting certain or all arms. This may seem far-fetched but a majority of Congress who are hostile to a president could conceivably do this very thing.
As more and more of the Constitution is ignored or is “interpreted” to mean nothing or the opposite of its plain meaning, this may be a real threat. Imagine if a 60% majority that is hostile to a president and can override his veto gain power.
The country is already suffering from the “reinterpretation” of the requirement that the president and vice president be natural born citizens. To be a natural born US citizen one must be born to a natural (biological) father who is a citizen, either natural born or naturalized and be born on the soil of the United States of America.
The Framers were quite knowledgeable of the meaning of “natural born,” as explained by Emmerich de Vattel in The Law of Nations (1758).
The purpose of the clause is to exclude persons who may have allegiances to other than the United States of America from the supreme command of the Armed Forces of the United States. The only exception provided is for persons who were citizens of the United States at the time of adoption of the Constitution (1789) and who had been resident for 14 years. As all such persons have been dead for more than a century, the exception now has no meaning.
The strongest allegiance is overwhelmingly that of one’s father. If the father is unknown, or is a foreigner who coerced or forced the mother, allegiance tends to follow that of one’s mother. Finally, the weakest allegiance tends to adhere to the country of one’s birth. When one is born to alien parents who later are naturalized, it would seem that the child would hold allegiance to the country of birth.
However, the purpose of the Framers was not to be fair, to be equitable, but to protect the country from persons who might bear allegiance to other nations from becoming Commander In Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States. They also declared that a president who solicits, offers, receives or gives a bribe may be removed by conviction on impeachment. Then such a person is subject to criminal prosecution.
In like manner, a president who commits Treason may be removed by conviction on impeachment. Then such a person is subject to criminal prosecution.

Arjay
Arjay
1 month ago
Reply to  HarryS

I disagree that the states are not bound by national law, the U. S. Constitution.

When the states ratified their admission to become one of these United States, they agreed to be bound by the United States Constitution! PERIOD!

Why else would there be a need for a U. S. Constitution if the individual states didn’t have to abide by it?

Who is the U. S Constitution FOR?

Also incorrect interpretation of “militia”. Study what was meant by the founding fathers with the meaning of “militia” at the time of the writing of our Constitution.

Go to this site below for complete article:
https://constitution.org/1-Activism/mil/cs_milit.htm

“I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.”
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
MilitiaThe meaning of “militia”The word “militia” is a Latin abstract noun, meaning “military service”, not an “armed group” (with the connotation of plurality), and that is the way the Latin-literate Founders used it. The collective term, meaning “army” or “soldiery” was “volgus militum”. Since for the Romans “military service” included law enforcement and disaster response, it might be more meaningfully translated today as “defense service”, associated with a “defense duty”, which attaches to individuals as much as to groups of them, organized or otherwise.
When we are alone, we are all militia units of one. When together with others in a situation requiring a defensive response, we have the duty to act together in concert to meet the challenge. Those two component duties, of individuals to defend the community, and to act together in concert with others present, when combined with a third component duty to prepare to do one’s duty and not just wait until the danger is clear and present, comprises the militia duty.
Real courage is found, not in the willingness to risk death, but in the willingness to stand, alone if necessary, against the ignorant and disapproving herd. — Jon Roland, 1976 Militia Duty: Defend. Co-operate. Prepare.To understand the above motto is to understand the foundation of society and legitimate government and law.
“The militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves, … all men capable of bearing arms;…”
— “Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic”, 1788 (either Richard Henry Lee or Melancton Smith).
“Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress shall have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American … The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the People.”
— Tench Coxe, 1788.
“How we burned in the prison camps later thinking: What would things have been like if every police operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive? If during periods of mass arrests people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever was at hand? The organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt.”
— Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Nobel Prize winner and author of The Gulag Archipelago, who spent 11 years in Soviet concentration camps. If we are ready to violate the Constitution, will the people submit to our unauthorized acts? Sir, they ought not to submit; they would deserve the chains that our measures are forging for them, if they did not resist.
— Edward Livingston Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.
— Mao Zedong, Nov. 6, 1938, Selected Works, Vol. 2

Arjay
Arjay
1 month ago
Reply to  HarryS

I disagree that the states are not bound by national law, the U. S. Constitution.

When the states ratified their admission to become one of these United States, they agreed to be bound by the United States Constitution! PERIOD!

Why else would there be a need for a U. S. Constitution if the individual states didn’t have to abide by it?

Who is the U. S Constitution FOR then?

Also incorrect interpretation of “militia”. Study what was meant by the founding fathers with the meaning of “militia” at the time of the writing of our Constitution.

Go to this site below for complete article remove the spaces:
https:// constitution. org/1- Activism/ mil/cs_milit.htm

“I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.”

— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

Militia The meaning of “militia”The word “militia” is a Latin abstract noun, meaning “military service”, not an “armed group” (with the connotation of plurality), and that is the way the Latin-literate Founders used it. The collective term, meaning “army” or “soldiery” was “volgus militum”. Since for the Romans “military service” included law enforcement and disaster response, it might be more meaningfully translated today as “defense service”, associated with a “defense duty”, which attaches to individuals as much as to groups of them, organized or otherwise.

When we are alone, we are all militia units of one. When together with others in a situation requiring a defensive response, we have the duty to act together in concert to meet the challenge. Those two component duties, of individuals to defend the community, and to act together in concert with others present, when combined with a third component duty to prepare to do one’s duty and not just wait until the danger is clear and present, comprises the militia duty.

Real courage is found, not in the willingness to risk death, but in the willingness to stand, alone if necessary, against the ignorant and disapproving herd. — Jon Roland, 1976 Militia Duty: Defend. Co-operate. Prepare.To understand the above motto is to understand the foundation of society and legitimate government and law.

“The militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves, … all men capable of bearing arms;…”
— “Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic”, 1788 (either Richard Henry Lee or Melancton Smith).

“Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress shall have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American … The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the People.”
— Tench Coxe, 1788.

“How we burned in the prison camps later thinking: What would things have been like if every police operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive? If during periods of mass arrests people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever was at hand? The organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt.”
— Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Nobel Prize winner and author of The Gulag Archipelago, who spent 11 years in Soviet concentration camps. If we are ready to violate the Constitution, will the people submit to our unauthorized acts? Sir, they ought not to submit; they would deserve the chains that our measures are forging for them, if they did not resist.
— Edward Livingston Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.
— Mao Zedong, Nov. 6, 1938, Selected Works, Vol. 2

tracker1
tracker1
1 month ago
Reply to  Arjay

Bound by the CONSTITUTION, NOT by the federal govt. While cedeing power to the federal govt they LIMITED those powers to only 17 areas. The present govt has gone far beyond those.

Bemused Berserker
Bemused Berserker
1 month ago

Hostin is an Imbecile. Then again, so are the rest of the Old Hos on the Spew.

Ben Matthews
Ben Matthews
1 month ago

Because they’re catering for a very specific demographic, ppl who went to college to study liberal-arts & “ended-up” being indoctrinated by socialism, taught by aging, disgruntled-‘hippies’… why & how, do you think the CCP “disarmed” the Chinese population, after the Revolution, the Chinese ppl will forever remain under the heel of the communists, because they’ve “all” the guns…these god-damned-mfkrs, in lib-turd media, envisage a similar future/fate for America, but can’t have 2A there, to spoil their agenda. That’s also why they hate the Constitution, in general, with such a passion❗️

Dicky
1 month ago

What a dumb idiot, the whole show is totally worthless!

Gordon
Gordon
1 month ago

NONSENSE1

Stephen Russell
Stephen Russell
1 month ago

NRA was then created to give ex slaves Guns then

HarryS
HarryS
1 month ago

The NRA was created in 1871 by Union Army officers to improve the abysmal shooting skills of the militia, those subject to being called up for military purposes. Southern troops had in many battles cut the Union forces into pieces. Only by sheer force of overwhelming numbers did Union forces prevail in many battles.

tracker1
tracker1
1 month ago

Actually the NRA was formed because it was noticed that during the civil war too many Union troops were not proficent with firearms as opposed to southern troops. NRA was formed to make sure a significant number of Americans would be.

Woody Woodridge
Woody Woodridge
1 month ago

That goes to show that the hispanic Missy Piggy doesn’t know schitt about American history and neither does that token BLM woman. ABC take the show off the air and show cartoons people would learn more.

Charles
1 month ago

I wonder if those 2 females actually believe that nonsense?

Charles
1 month ago

Why don’t they shut that show down for spreading misinformation?.

Arjay
Arjay
1 month ago
Reply to  Charles

Misinformation? Call it what it is, LIES!!

WillieJackson
WillieJackson
1 month ago

These women, for their protection, have guards and locks on their doors as well as walls and large mansions with security cameras.

yet they want to do away with common citizens rights to protect themselves and families safe.
how did her mamma name her Joy, must have been Opposite Day

trackback

[…] recently covered another story where Sunny Hostin, a host of “The View“, made a similar claim. There we go into much […]

Ron
Ron
1 month ago

Behar and Sunny Hostin are two of the most irrelevant fools to take to the airwaves in order to put forth their typical leftist revisionist’s version of history. The 2nd Amendment has it’s roots long before we had a revolution in American colonies, even before slaves and the ground work for the need to have the people armed was codified by the earliest of the colonists. Codified to the point where fines were levied on citizens NOT having the required amount of powder and ball on hand during periodic inspections of arms! The earliest records of America cite absolutely nothing in regards to the preservation of slavery by firearms or a need to but almost exclusively were defense related in the context of being able to fend off attacks.

The article touches lightly on some points I have been addressing about the Democrats and their attempts at GUN CONTROL and its inherent racist origins. Nearly ever single gun control measure from the 1860s to 1870s were squarely aimed at limiting or the outright forbiddance of private gun ownership by recently emancipated people with “black skin.” Democrats pushed this agenda and the laws and the courts were all in alignment and the language contained in those laws, statues and ordinances were extra clear that anyone able to read it could see clearly these were colored laws and that Caucasians were clearly intended to be the only ones allowed to have privately owned firearms. This whole mess continued right through the civil rights are and post MLK days and the target of the gun control groups never changed…black citizens, specifically black males! That’s just part of the Democrat Party legacy if G. Wallace and the KKK is not enough bad legacy already!

But we need not sit in amazement and ponder the reasons why people watch such mind-rot garbage programs like The View which are the ghetto of daytime shows. One only needs to sit quietly for a moment and let it sink in that there are plenty of people in America that are nothing more than drones that like to follow the nation’s most stupid people around and be fed hate by these useful idiots that have a propensity to lie to people’s faces.

I have said it many many times and will say it again that there is one entity in America that is the root cause of all that is wrong in this nation and that is the Democrat Party. From top to bottom, side to side and inclusive of every voting member that belongs to this organization, you’ll not find any redeeming qualities at all. In neither the organization or the people that support it and certain NOT in any politician from that party who carries the (D) beside their name! Since the birth of this party it has contained and condoned those that suborn perjury, support Marxist organizations the world over, seek to oppress and/or silence people that show opposition to them and block attempts at government transparency. Sure, other politicians from other parties have been guilty of wrong doing but the Democrat Party seems to be a powerful magnet to draw people of this sort of character.

In my youth I wondered why people joined the Democrat party and P. T. Barnum gave me the only sensible answer: “There’s a sucker born every minute.”

Hostin and Behar know more about sodomy than they do about the history of the NRA or guns! Violent crime will never see its end as long as we have Hostins and Behars in the world who will never address the root causes of violence. To do so will force them to address topics that seriously do no fit their political narrative.

Joe
Joe
1 month ago

What ignorance, comes from these old hags, stupidity is bliss,with these comedians.

Bemused Berserker
Bemused Berserker
1 month ago

A thorough reading of the Federalist #29, is needed to understand that the relationship of Hamilton and Madison’s proposed “Militia,” bore any direct application to Slavery. The “”Militia,” in Hamilton’s view, not only bore responsibility of protecting the US from foreign or Internal government Tyranny. Ot was also the Militia’s responsibility to quell Rebellion/Insurrection within the State. A Slave revolt/uprising could in theory, activate the Militia to shut the unrest down. It’s never directly addressed though, so I only see the possibility, not a directly stated use of the Militia.

The second clause, “the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed,” is neither Racist or Sexist. I’ve found no contemporary commentary supporting either a Racist or Sexist establishment opinion on the second clause. Any infringing legislation barring Freedmen/women their “Right,” was entirely upon the various States and Municipalities part, not the Constitution/Bill of Rights part.

Gene Ralno
Gene Ralno
1 month ago

Behar’s projecting. It was her democrat ancestors who were slave owners. Most northern states opposed slavery and Military Officers, blue and gray, had no use for them.

Gene Ralno
Gene Ralno
1 month ago

Almost all slaves were owned by democrats. Today, democrats are radical opponents of firearm ownership by private citizens. The connection is clear.

Arjay
Arjay
1 month ago

“[O]p-ed writer Carl T. Bogus raises the question of if the institution of slavery influenced the 2nd Amendment.”

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

Bogus attempts, you can NOT make up this stuff. What a name and it really fits the editorial departments of MOST “news” papers.

Most, if not all gun grabbers, use bogus attempts to put gun owners in a bad light and to make them look like criminals while doing NOTHING to take guns away from CRIMINALS. They don’t even want to put CRIMINALS in prison.

Bemused Berserker
Bemused Berserker
15 days ago

Have heard their claim before. The big issue is it’s a LIE. In the Committee minutes and the writings of the delegates, official and private, no mention of slavery in regards to the 2nd Amendment are ever discussed. So Hostin is full of Scheiße and Bogus’ name says it all.

Of course, the viewership of the “Spew” will eat the Lie as gospel.

sosee
15 days ago

An ant has more brain cells than the idiots on the View.

You may also like