Crackpot history: Roger Ebert tweets ‘The 2nd Amendment was ratified to preserve slavery’

No, really. Roger Ebert said that the 2nd Amendment was ratified to preserve slavery.

While delusions and nonsense from Ebert are nothing new, Twitter users were swift to react to his absurd claim.

Crackpot history, indeed.

Read up on some things, Ebert.

And, an epic snap.

Bingo! Welcome to the light, Roger.

  • Josephine (D)

    The Second Amendment was devised to let citizens bear arms in times of emergency. The Minutemen were the then-contemporary example of this. Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist #24 that the people could defend themselves against a tyrannical army.

    According to my American Government schoolbook, in early Virginia, you couldn’t travel unless you were well armed. Massachusetts(!) required all freemen and indentured servants to be armed. Failure to do so could get you fined.

    “No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms.”-Thomas Jefferson

    • GoSellCrazySomeplaceElse

      The left will say Jefferson was speaking of extremeties. #MentalLibness

    • HayZeus

      Yes, and as the historical record shows, *the* “emergency” southern states and their militias were concerned with was… wait for it you silly little right-wingo pudding brain… *slave rebellion.”

      • scottsdalebubbe

        Thank you. Another sane voice.

      • JeffWRidge

        What historical record is that? I would really like to read where the Founders stated that the 2nd Amendment was intended to preserve slavery. Original text please, with references where it can be found.

    • scottsdalebubbe

      American Government schoolbooks were immune from the propaganda of the time, politicization and revisionism? I love it how some people absolutely refuse to believe scientific fact if it interferes with their absolute religious belief in an fairy tale book about an imaginary friend, but swallow whole what is in their American Government schoolbooks. And at the same time they lament the “librulization” of education. Which is it folks. Or are you blissfully unaware of the cognitive dissonance you continue to demonstrate?

  • grais

    Did Hollywood teach him that?

    • HayZeus


      Did your right-wingo media make you the historically illiterate boob you so clearly are?

      • grais


        So, Ebert’s correct?!?
        You must be one of the smart, sensitive, pleasant ones.

  • 2ifbyT

    Ebert and the ilk of the left will continue to use their bullhorn. That is their 1st Amendment Right. My 1st Amendment Right is to ignore them. My 2nd Amendment Right is own as many guns as I want to purchase, with the primary purpose being to protect myself from a tyrannical government. And I can rest assured that if any tyranny arises in this country, it will come from the left. I am prepared.

    • scottsdalebubbe

      It’s interesting how suppression of slave runaways and slave revolts has morphed into “protection from a tyrannical government” (Awww, you don’t get to smoke or carry guns in bars in some states and you are required to pay taxes. Poor you!). The 2nd Amendment gave ordinary white men the right to participate in tyrannical state and local governments that were oppressing black slaves in behalf of slave owning families and corporations. The “tyrannical government” meme came from the Southern states and slave-owning oligarchs who felt the end of slavery in the entire U.S. meant that they were being denied their god-given rights to oppress and enslave black people. Such a sorry history has evolved into a self-righteous, bellicose, red-faced group of tools who pay money to subsidize the gun industry’s lobbying efforts to continue the cycle of gun hoarding, thus enriching the industry and pitting citizen against citizen in legislative bodies and courts and (hopefully not mano a mano).

      • ceemack

        Oh, Lord. Before posting again, please:

        1. Read some small bit of actual history.

        2. Lay off the Red Bull.

      • 2ifbyT

        Put the crack pipe down and back away. Slowly.

        • Jon Hartley

          Says the guy who boasts that he is “prepared” for tyrannical assaults from the left.

          • 2ifbyT

            Do you not get sarcasm? Or do I – and everyone else – have to spell it out for you??

      • celtnik

        The only people pitting citizen against citizen are the people who want to deny them their constitutionally protected right to defend themselves. There are over 80million registered gun owners in this country, if they were all violent whack jobs like you insist, none of you liberals would even be around today. Liberals are incapable of understanding the concept of freedom of association and voluntary contracts. It has no bearing on your life, at all whether or not a responsible gun owner owns and operates a firearm. None. The amount of money gun manufacturers and retailers has no effect on your life, at all. Again, however, you don’t understand the concept of voluntary contracts. You are simultaneously an autocratic thug who wants to tell people how to live their lives and deny them their God given right to defend themselves, and a sheep looking for a master. If you want to eliminate the gun lobby group, then stop trying to deny us our 2nd ammendment rights. You created them, you idiot.

    • scottsdalebubbe

      The tyranical Xtian wingnut Ayatollahs and their attempt to taliban us, especially women, were put down and will continue to be put down at the ballot box by a majority of American voters. We are not waiting for angry white guys to evolve and catch up with the rest of us.

      • Libsrdoofuses

        Psst….your superiority complex is showing.

        If there is one thing that liberal trolls like you are blissfully unaware of (among what seems a multitude of issues), is the inevitability of history repeating itself. After hundreds of thousands of years of human history, you seem to be under the delusion that just because you and the rest of your “evolved” ilk are presently on the planet, that the tyranny and opppression that has taken place for MILENNIA can’t happen again. Keep massaging your genitals while you tell yourself that.

        The rest of us? We’ll take notice of human history. We’ll take notice of people like you who take great pleasure in imposing your will against us in an effort to support your own ego and sense of self-grandiosity. We’ll take notice of a creeping government that gradually erodes the freedoms that the founding fathers bestowed upon us.

        If you choose to be a victim when tyranny and oppression occur, by choosing not to own a weapon, that’s YOUR choice. Your choices however, do not translate to me.

        Also, thanks for showing your TRUE colors to the world by actually posting that last sentence. You’ve told us all we need to know about yourself. /golfclap

  • Jack Deth

    Memo to Mr. Ebert:

    If “‘The 2nd Amendment was ratified to preserve slavery.”

    Why were those same ratified Second Amendment Rights denied to blacks in predominantly Democrat states after the Civil War and throughout Jim Crow?

    Just askin’.

    • michael s

      Because white Democrats and white Republicans agreed to deny blacks 2nd amendment rights.

      • Jack Deth


        Keep on thinking that. You haven’t been right about anything so far.

        Though you are Masochistically consistent.

      • TocksNedlog

        Is this the “they made a law IN ORDER TO deny its protection to a particular segment of the population” argument?

        • michael s


          • TocksNedlog

            Because what the 2nd Amendment REALLY says — in the original, super-secret illuminati version — is “the right of white people to point guns at black people shall not be infringed.” Right?

          • scottsdalebubbe

            Bingo! Read Thom Hartmann’s full article with original quotes from Founding Fathers’ writings and books written by academics using original historical documents.

          • TocksNedlog

            Looking at all of the black-on-black murders in Chicago this past year, I’d say they’ve achieved full equality.
            You’ve come a long way, baby!

          • Readhed


      • WisconsinPatriot

        Yeah…..the republicans cut themselves down from the trees they were hanging in just to do that!You can run from democrat history, but you WILL NOT re-write it. The KKK was a democrat institution, carrying forth democrat policy through terrorist means. OWN IT!

        • michael s

          And Jodie Foster is a sapphite, so what’s your point?

        • Jerry Baustian

          The Klan was the militant wing of the Democratic Party.

          • SideshowJon36

            since replaced by the Unions

      • Slapweasel

        You MUST wake up every morning, saying:

        “I’m determined not to try today. By all accounts, I cannot say anything that makes a point, let alone any sense. I declare to be in opposition of everything from water being wet -to paint being un-delicious. Today? …I simply refuse to try.”

      • R.C.

        Do you know why the Republican party was founded ?
        You can revise history, but you cant change it.

    • scottsdalebubbe

      The answer to your question is in the question itself and in the history of Jim Crow. It was the KKK that wanted to deny blacks 2nd Amendment rights. And the Democrats then are the Republicans and Tea Partiers of today.

      • Jack Deth

        We have a genuine, honest to God, Low Intelligence Voter, here!

        One with 26 whole comments to its name!

        You really are incredibly stupid, aren’t you?

        Not just “normal” or “run of the mill” stupid. I’m talking “weapons grade”, completely indoctrinated from kindergarten, public school, liberal stupid.

        • scottsdalebubbe

          You can call me names (logical fallacy of argumentum ad hominem). You can question my education (wherever I got it, it is better than your your 4th grade dropout education). But so far, you have not refuted my assertions with facts. Which makes you the low information voter, chronically fact-impaired.

          • Fred Dardick

            When someone gets history so very wrong it’s hard to know where to begin when rebutting. Why waste valuable time with someone obviously stuck on stupid? An insult and swift kick to the backside sometimes really is the best response.

          • scottsdalebubbe

            That is just a lamer’s way of avoiding the issue and really backing down because he does not have an alternative. Insults and violence. What a creative and intelligent guy!

          • Berferd

            logical fallacy of argumentum ad hominem, anyone? Site your sources for what you term “fact.”

          • Ray Wachter

            You, sir, are the chronically fact impaired. Again, to extend your lesson, just because you attempt to re-write history in more favorable terms to your personal (dis)belief system, does not make it so.

          • DavidM

            Your “argument” is basically : “Since one of Nixons people said ‘Southern strategy’ 40 years ago all republicans are racist”.

            There was no voter suppression. There were no racial slurs by the tea party. You aren’t a moral upstanding freedom fighter, you are just ignorant.

            Who was the top candidate in Dec 2011? Herman Cain.

            PS. What do you call 96% of blacks voting for the black candidate over the white one? Hmmmm?

          • MrApple

            I hated it when Herman Cain bowed out of the election. I would have loved to have seen a Ron Paul/Herman Cain ticket. Things would have been tough in this country with the drastic spending cuts but it would have been a great start at getting this nation back on track.

        • Fred Dardick

          “Weapons grade stupid” – instant classic!

        • Ray Wachter

          Nuclear weapons grade he is. Holy crap. First in line with his hand out stupid.

      • celtnik

        Right, so if I understand your thinking right, those Southern Democrats who voted agains the Voting Rights Act and Civil Rights Acts of 1964 punished by Republicans (who voted for it in majorities in both houses) by joining the Repubican party? Somehow, a country with a history of partisianship, somhow went through some polar political reversal, overnight. Not one of those Democrats who voted against those two bill switched parties.

        • scottsdalebubbe

          Ever hear of Nixon’s “southern strategy”? The lawmakers may not have switched parties but the citizens in the South did. The Democrats who voted against the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Right Acts of 1963 were not punished by the Republican Party. And because northern Democrats and President Johnson supported those acts, the Nixon Republicans ignored the Republicans’ voting record and instituted a campaign of demogauging the south under “law and order” memes — where we were all supposed to be afraid of African Americans who now had new rights. If AAs were to have the vote, then the Republican Party had to have a counter weight of frightened, racist, whites who were incensed at giving up their presumption of privilege and sense of (and actually written into law) entitlement.

          Reading some of the racist posts today on this site, I can see that the Republican strategy worked its evil very well.

          • JamesMc

            And yet, somehow, the party that defines issues along racial lines has remained the Democrat Party. You guys also, somehow, in Democrat held areas managed to get AAs to remain segregated too. How odd.

          • Ray Wachter

            Wow. You are sincerely and utterly stupid. You ever hear of LBJ’s sincere quote about who he’d have voting for democrats over the next 200 years? Learn from history. Do not attempt to re-write it. It’s owned by your party though we know you don’t want to face it. Or if you happen to be a black person, it should make you sick.

          • scottsdalebubbe

            Take a look at which party is inclusive of all races and which party is not. Sick? No, proud! And relieved that I don’t have to share a party with knuckle dragging Teapartiers who carry signs saying, “Government out of my Medicare”, who try every (minority) voter suppression trick in the book and then some, and then scream about voter fraud if two punks in berets, leather jackets, and sunglasses show up at the polls, or think that every international and local problem can be solved at the end of a gun. They remind me of the play, “Teahouse of the August Moon,” where the base colonel says, “We’re going to teach those Okinawans democracy if we have to shoot every one of them.” However, Teathuglicants are irony impaired so they and you probably don’t get it.

          • celtnik

            By minority repression, you mean having to show an ID card when you vote, just like this white guys is required to do? Tell me, how do you explain the vile, racist epithets hurled at minority conservatives like Condoleeza Rice, Clarence Thomas, Thomas Sowell, Allen West, Marco Rubio, etc. Since you are also such a master negotiatior, tell me how you would talk down a nut case like Ahmadinejad, or even Qadaffi or Mubarak? See, Obama sent weapons to those islamist nut jobs during the so called “Arab Spring” so they could overtake their country by the muzzle of a gun, since you probably aren’t smart enough to get the irony. And by the way, the first Civil Rights Act of the last century was proposed by President Eisenhower, a repubican, but it was rewritten in committee by the order of the Senate Majority leader at the time, LBJ. The final bill wasn’t anything close to what Eisenhower and the Republicans proposed. LBJ explains his vote position on the matter thusly:

            “These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this, we’ve got to give them a little something,
            just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. For if we don’t move at all, then their allies will line up against us
            and there’ll be no way of stopping them, we’ll lose the filibuster
            and there’ll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild
            legislation. It’ll be Reconstruction all over again.”

            Republicans also proposed the first Civil Rights Act of the 19th century in 1875.

          • Terry

            Dude, there’s a much greater percentage of Republican governors that are minorities, than Democrat governors. Do some research before spewing your vile hate. (BTW, KKK member and long time WV Senator Robert Byrd was a democrat) And voter fraud isn’t only because of two punks in berets. It has to do with bus loads of people from Chicago voting in the WI recall election of Scott Walker, people trying to vote for Romney in OH and the computer registering a vote for Obama instead. People gleefully bragging on Twitter how they voted more than once. Project Veritas rep could have voted as Eric Holder if he were a criminal. etc etc etc. Unless and until you actually attend a TeaParty rally, you are way out of line in purporting to know who they are or what they believe. The media has never accurately portrayed TeaParty rallies because the left is scared to death of real US patriots

      • Ray Wachter

        That is just a bullshit response. The democrats of yesterday are the democrats of today. Wolves in sheeps clothing. You know less that dick about history if you keep rattling off that pablum.

  • Marcy Cook

    Roger “I make shit up” Ebert.

  • V the K

    [Putting on my Johnathan Swift hat] Y’know, the majority of gun violence in the USA is committed by minorities. So, you could make a case that making it illegal for minorities to own guns would save many, many lives. And as the President said, “If it saves even one life, then we should do it.”

    • HayZeus

      The hat doesn’t fit. You are a hat, a hat for an ass.

      An asshat.

      • Libsrdoofuses

        Nope…he’s just using sarcasm to point out the ridiculousness of liberal, touchy-feely policies, and while those policies may placate quacking eggheads such as yourself, they tend not to address the root cause of problems in any way, shape or form. It’s a shame the sarcasm flew right over your head.

      • V the K

        You don’t actually know who Johnathan Swift is, do you?

        Well done, public schools.

  • itzyaboi95

    Another public figure I’ll never support in any way, shape, or form.

    • HayZeus

      I’m sure he’s losing lotsa sleep over that.

  • Steve_J

    How does his statement square with the Civil War?

    • dmacleo

      because it LOOK A SQUIRREL!!

    • HayZeus

      Quite easily: the Civil War occurred some decades after the constitution was signed.

  • TocksNedlog

    Question: Does Ebert’s African-American wife agree with his opinion?

    • HayZeus

      An answer: You’re a twerp.

      • TocksNedlog

        It was a rhetorical question, but feel free to respond with an actual answer.

  • TugboatPhil

    Wow! Ebert really took that one on the chin! (too soon?)

    • wwbdinct


  • Derek Sugimura

    Is he still a crackpot if he’s right? (Although he would have been more correct to say that it was revised to preserve slavery.)

    • MrApple

      You, it is obvious and sad, don’t know your own history. Read a book and open your mind.

      • Connor Johnson

        I don’t understand… You keep telling people to “learn some history” and now you say to “open your mind”, but how could you possibly have an open mind if you just keep spouting meaningless insults at people? I am consistently astounded by the level of immaturity I see on the Internet, and I am also disappointed.

        • MrApple

          You have done a fine job at taking my words out of
          context. Bravo!

          I commented in response to Mr. Sugimura’s comment
          regarding the 2nd Amendment and how it was revised in order to preserve
          slavery. The 2nd Amendment, part of the Bill of Rights, was introduced to
          Congress in 1789 by James Madison, with several variations to follow. The version that we know and love was adopted
          in 1791. The Founding Fathers knew that
          the personal right to bear arms was the paramount right which acted as the
          cornerstone to all other rights. The
          Bill of Rights was heavily influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689
          which acknowledged the right to bear arms as a firmly established natural right
          in English law to provide, legally, a right to self-defense. The English Bill of Rights of 1689 was in
          reaction to abuse and an attempt to disarm Protestants by Catholic King James
          II. Another Founding Father, James
          Monroe listed the right to bear arms as a basic human right and had proposed
          this be added to the Constitution in the years prior to the Bill of Rights
          being adopted. The Founders had fought
          against the tyranny of King George III and were understandable concerned about
          any political corruption or governmental overstep. The 2nd Amendment was firmly
          placed into the Bill of Rights to emphasize the need of the armed individual to
          act as a member of the militia to defend national sovereignty and protect
          against tyranny. The 2nd
          Amendment had nothing to do with the preservation of slavery. Was it used in that manner, at times it
          probably was but that was not the intent or purpose of the 2nd Amendment?

          And maybe I wasn’t clear by “Read a book and open
          your mind.” What I meant, and I
          apologize for any misunderstanding, was to quit reading Liberal revisionist
          crap and read the works of the Founders.
          If you want to know what the Constitution and Bill of Rights really mean
          then ask the men that lived the period and wrote the damn thing. I hope I have raised my level of immaturity
          to an acceptable level for you.

          • HayZeus

            Nice collection of paragraphs, but unfortunately, none of it refutes the assertion that the form the amendment the amendment took was meant to allay the concerns of slave holders. Hartmann’s piece references the words of those involved and shows it quite clearly.

            EIther you’ve not read it, and are not able to substantially argue against it as a result, or you are deliberately avoiding substantially arguing against it.

          • MrApple

            Did slave owners employ the 2nd Amendment to maintain their stock of slaves? I’m sure some did; I’m sure most did. The Spartans used force and intimidation to keep those enslaved from Messenia and Lakonia under their thumbs even though the Spartans were massively outnumbered. Force does a great job at keeping people in line. The point is the 2nd Amendment was not specifically put into the Bill of Rights to preserve slavery.

          • Libsrdoofuses

            …OR, you’re imposing your “assertion”/interpretation of the Bill of Rights on guys that have been dead for 200 years, because it suits your narrative, rather than read the actual language and understand it’s intent based on it’s WHOLE, not just excerpts that you carve out to fit your argument.

            By the way…you’re a liberal right? Aren’t you a champion of equal rights? Why are you dismissing elements of the Bill of Rights (and it’s subsequent amendments) as a “nice collection of paragraphs”? Why do you hate the Bill of Rights and the freedoms it grants so much?

            See, conservatives LOVE the Bill of Rights. We want to defend it….vigorously. We’ll even pick up a rifle and defend your right to come onto these boards and make repeatedly inane, stupid and uninformed comments, because while those adjectives describe you perfectly, you still have a right to vocalizing your beliefs. Yep…we’ll stand up for your stupidity all day long.

            You’re welcome.

          • Grumpa Grumpus

            @Josh Apple:

            Sincere thanks from an old man too wearied to do all that typing on a Droid keyboard!

            That is the most succinct correct recital of the actual history I’ve read, and couldn’t do better.

            Thank you!! Absolutely wonderful!

            All others take note!

          • Libsrdoofuses

            Josh, you shouldn’t apologize for having sound beliefs and a clear understanding of the history of (what once was) our government, even if your apology is sarcastic in tone. NEVER back down, NEVER apologize, even if you are kidding when doing so. Liberal trolls have neither earned nor deserve any retreat by you…even if they “misunderstand” your words. They are fact-challenged after all…

            Also, great post. Keep up the good fight.

    • NachoCheese (D)

      So some website posts their interpretation of history and that makes his idiotic statement right? Are you so naive as to believe everything you read on the internet is true, accurate and not driven by an agenda?

      “The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be
      properly armed.” (Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-8)

      “…to disarm the people – that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380)

      But why bother reading the words of the men that wrote the Constitution, it is much better to go to some random website and declare their (re)interpretation of history as correct.

      • Libsrdoofuses

        Hey Derek, the reply/post above would meet the definitions of:

        –Being “owned” (or “PWNED”, depending on your preferred use of the colloquialism.
        –Being NachoCheese’s “bitch”.

        Look those references up on the internet if you need to, since that’s obviously where you learn history.

      • CherDash

        Yep, yet Obama wants to disarm us. Not a stretch to think he wants it so he can enslave us.

  • MrApple

    How about Ebert stick to what he does in a half-ass manner, reviewing movies?

    • HayZeus

      One of his stray farts looks like Einstein’s theories next to anything you’ve ever thought, said, or written.

      • MrApple

        Personal jabs, brilliant! Well done! I love fart humor.

        • MrApple

          I could spend the time to battle ad hominem with you. It would be fun but not very productive. I could say hurtful things like, “I seen more interesting things in my infant son’s messy diaper than any of the crap you’ve written. Get it, crap. But that does nothing to further or better the discussion at hand. I choose to not lower myself to that juvenal level. But feel free if you choose to; since it is one of those Basic Rights as an American that you enjoy and rest in the comfort knowing that the 2nd Amendment is there to make sure those Rights are maintained.

  • Joseph Phillips

    When all else fails Libs resort to the old RACE card. Is anyone else entirely sick of their whining and screwed up logic?

  • notenoughtime

    It is pretty clear now why the 2nd amendment was enacted and Ebert’s and the liberal lefts mindset is enough to keep it intact. Our founding fathers were much smarter than the bunch in Washington today. It is obvious our best days are behind us!

    • HayZeus

      Nicely put, considering you obviously know next-to-nothing of what our founding fathers were thinking and doing at the time the constitution was framed.

      • CherDash

        Yes we do, they wrote their thoughts down.

  • TheKingJAK

    Dred Scott, read it. The SCOTUS knew the power of slaves being free and armed.

  • I’m totally astounded by the complete idiocy of Ebert. Apparently the chemo has affected his thought process.

    • HayZeus

      A bit of his phlegm is more intelligent than any thought you’ve ever thunk.

      One of his used tissues is more insightful than the total of everything your rudimentary little mind has every come up with in your entire sorry existence.

      • Leroy

        The man whose life is devoted to watching and reviewing Hollywood fantasy?

  • Goo Gwaba

    The man really has problems.

  • Cottoneyed

    To further show the ignorance of the statement, two Union Generals in 1871, founded the NRA as a means to drive out the KKK and ensuring that blacks, who were not allowed means with which to defend themselves, could legally own a gun! So, Ebert, supposition is 180 degrees out of phase. The NRA was formed to protect blacks!! Let the left speak and continue to show their utter stupidity.

  • Peter Wort

    Hmm, Ebert is correct, according to James Madison and Patrick Henry. The whole discussion about militias was so that the US government could not force southern slave patrol militias to leave their posts to serve in other states during wartime

  • Matt Robinson

    we didnt listen to this fool when he told us what movies to see…why would anyone dream of listening to him espouse equally terrible ideological reviews?

  • Rick Weesner

    You can rewrite history all you want, but it doesn’t change the fact that the Second Amendment is in the Constitution. Whatever you believe its origins to be, it is the law of the land.

  • idic5

    I came here looking for clarity on the subject and all I see is stuff about going to hell, people calling each other names, and post 2nd amendment ratification stuff. the original subject was the ratification of the 2nd amendment , which occurred in the 1780s and not the Civil War, Jim Crow, KKK etc.


    Stick to fiction Roger. Facts are too tough for you.

  • lillymckim

    You know I thought he was at least an “educated fool”… I was wrong.