By J. D. Heyes, editor-in-chief
(National Sentinel) Revisionist History: Along with other legacy media outlets, The Washington Post continues to solidify its reputation as a thinly-disguised Marxist agitprop rag posing as a legitimate news organization.
The latest example of this is an actual story — not an opinion piece — claiming that gun ownership is racist and that whites use the Second Amendment today to ‘keep people of color in their places.’
Twisting facts and reshaping historical data to fit his wild claim, writer Nathan Wuertenberg — co-editor of the book “Demand the Impossible: Essays in History as Activism” and founder of the online journal “The Activist History Review” — asserts that “gun rights are about keeping white men on top,” and adds: “It shouldn’t surprise us that mass shootings have increased as minorities and women strive for equality.”
He begins his essay thusly:
Gun violence is rooted in white supremacy. We can’t solve the first without understanding its connection to the second.
Discussions of gun “rights” in the United States usually revolve around debated interpretations of the Second Amendment. But if we truly want to understand the influence of guns in our society, we need to center the debate in a much earlier period, one before the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.
In Colonial America, gun ownership equaled power. More specifically, it meant the power to control the means of violence and use those means to suppress the voices of the disenfranchised.
He goes onto say that 17th-century laws forbade women and slaves from owning guns and did not permit the sale of guns to Native Americans. True enough; women were not treated as equals then, slaves were property, and Native American tribes were often hostile to European settlers — so why would colonists arm them?
As for the claim that “gun ownership equaled power,” what it really signified was domestic security. Today’s National Guard actually began in 1636; the “first muster” — as depicted in a painting — of that year was organized as a means of defending the young, vastly outnumbered colonies.
“…[The] General Court of the Massachusetts Bay Colony ordered the organization of the Colony’s militia companies into three regiments: The North, South and East Regiments. The colonists had adopted the English militia system which obligated all males, between the ages of 16 and 60, to possess arms and participate in the defense of the community,” says the National Guard’s website.
“The growing threat of the Pequot Indians to the Massachusetts Bay Colony required that the militia be in a high state of readiness. The organization of the North, South and East Regiments increased the efficiency and responsiveness of the militia. Although the exact date is not known, the first muster of the East Regiment took place in Salem, Massachusetts,” the site noted further.
The founding fathers understood that the right to self-defense was God-given, not government granted, which is why they included an amendment in the Constitution specifically recognizing the right of men and women to possess arms for their defense (and as a check against authoritarian government).
“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms,” Thomas Jefferson wrote in the first draft of the Virginia Constitution.
“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms,” he later wrote in a 1787 letter to the father of the Constitution, James Madison.
“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!” Benjamin Franklin was quoted as saying.
And so forth.
As to the issue of slavery, our country convulsed and fought a war with itself to right that wrong. Later, via the constitutional amendment process, legislation, and the civil rights movement, our people used the freedoms we were provided by our founders to make the social changes necessary in order to perfect our liberty. Today, gun rights are truly colorblind, as they should be; they aren’t being “used by white men” to suppress people of color. That’s just insane to even suggest.
But today, agitprop ‘media’ like the Post and Left-wing ‘activist’ historians like Wuertenberg abuse their freedom of expression to keep the people riled up, at each other’s throats, and divided.
It’s disgusting and pathetic. And I refuse to let such detestable behavior go uncontested.
A version of this story first appeared at Newstarget.
We need your help to fight social media censorship! Find out how by clicking here!