> This is Daughters of the Confederacy "states rights" levels of historical revisionism. Absolutely wrong. Explain how this text, an obvious legal precursor to

> This is Daughters of the Confederacy "states rights" levels of historical revisionism. Absolutely wrong. Explain how this text, an obvious legal precursor to the 1st and 2nd amendments, has anything to do with slavery? https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689 https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689 “That it is the right of the subjects to petition the king, and all commitments and prosecutions for such petitioning are illegal; That the raising or keeping a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with consent of Parliament, is against law; That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;” > So the Second Amendment was born. Not to protect individual rights from encroachment, but to guarantee states the right to keep armed militia free from federal interference, in order to maintain control over black slaves. This is completely unable to explain why Free states in the north had a similar provision in their state constitutions recognizing the right to keep and bear arms. For example, was no need for slave patrols in Massachusetts, whose 1780 constitution contained this clause “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.”