Fighting (um, enforcing) tyranny

I had understood the Second Amendment to be about the right of the citizens to take up arms if their government became tyrannical. Actor Danny Glover says my understanding is wrong.

The Second Amendment comes from the right to protect themselves from slave revolts, and from uprisings by Native Americans. So, a revolt from people who were stolen from their land, or revolt from people whose land was stolen from, that’s what the genesis of the Second Amendment is.

Glover has backup:

Mother Jones also posited the theory in a 2008 article. "[Some] scholars believe the founders enshrined the right to bear arms in the Constitution in part to enforce tyranny, not fight it," Mother Jones reporter Stephanie Mencimer wrote. Explaining, "the 'well-regulated militias' cited in the Constitution almost certainly referred to state militias that were used to suppress slave insurrections."

Glover made his remarks at an MLK event apparently in response to a question. The event was at Texas A&M. Conservative students have started a petition that accuses the school of hosting "radical leftist speakers" and using school funding to do so. Yeah, a big university in Texas is accused of being too far left.

So this is how the Supremes are able to say laws that limit gun sales and ownership are unconstitutional. Europen-Americans are still afraid of revolts by descendants of slaves.