Scholary Comment sounds like a red herring to me. It is fringe theory whether or not a couple of agenda promoting scholars have tried to draw a link. Slaves were disarmed-there is no question to that. States had militias for protection. Militias were used to put down a couple of slave revolts. Then some illogical thinking takes place and something like this follows: Militias are mentioned in the 2nd amendment and militias had put down slave revolts and thus the 2nd amendment is about surpressing slaves. That is an idiotic, illogical conclusion. The valid argument is suppressed people have had their right to bear arms denied. The Europeans are a suppressed people because as Article XVII of the Commonwealth of Mass. states:"The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it." Europeans do not have that right and thus are suppressed from the right to keep and bear arms. 172.56.11.104