Danny Glover teaches constitutional law at Texas A & M University
Danny Glover either does not know history or is purposely misleading his pupils. Although some of the dangers he mentioned are true, the main reason for the second amendment was that there was no national army and each colony was responsible for its' own defense. There was still a threat from England as was demonstrated by the war of 1812. It can be argued that the second amendment is no longer necessary because we have a strong national army. Nearly all state "militias" have been nationalized and report to the federal government. However, the right to own a gun is not based solely on the second amendment. There is nothing in the Constitution that forbids gun ownership.
What a load. The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled, time after time, that rights can be regulated. Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater or threatening to kill someone, for instance, are not protected by freedom of speech.
Likewise the right to bear arms is regulated and always has been. This is clearly the case to anyone with any sense. Civilians may not legally possess surface to air missiles. You cannot bear any firearms or sharp instruments on an airplane. These are "ifs, ands, or buts". If you think your right to bear arms is absolute you are mistaken.
"there was no national army and each colony was responsible for its' own defense."
The main threats were Indians and slave revolts, and revolts from non-slave tenant farmers. There was also quite a bit of ethnic conflict in those days (Scottish v/s Irish, for instance, or German v/s English). It wasn't the British. American landowners were disgruntled at the British for not allowing them to defend themselves from these domestic threats while the British Army was weak in the colonies. They were afraid a weak Federal government might do the same.