2nd Amendment Passed to Protect Slavery? No!

I have to hand it to you for this one.

I have long wondered where Cenk Uygur of The Young Turks got the idea from, if not from his imagination. Now I know, thank you.

However the author of the article is also letting his own bias show about the intent of the 2nd Amendment. It would well serve this author and others that if they are willing to debunk some of the beliefs of their colleagues, based on 'historical fact;' then they should also be willing to look at their own through the same lens. And with this I would suggest starting with Rome and the Roman Republic and Empire.
And in this debate/discussion, it would be interesting how BOTH sides would cover and use the 'line of civility' (also used in conjunction with the pomerium line (religious boundary)) argument that was used in the early days of Wichita, Kansas and other cities and towns.
However I do like the author's explanation about the ratification of Amendments and that the 'Bill of Rights' could actually have been the original 12 proposed amendments (to make it out of Congress) as opposed to the 10 that were ratified. Note that the 27th Amendment was actually proposed as part of the package but was not ratified until 1992; and that the other proposed Amendment (Congressional Apportionment)(but is kind of a moot point because of the 'Reapportionment Act of 1929) is still pending ratification.

What happened to the "Discussion" comments ?
Were they dropped sometime in the 4 years since original publication of the article?
Was there any "discussion" of the author's view that the 2nd Amendment was a "state's right" to keep a militia, and not an individual right? (That, in spite of the fact that the 2nd Amendment guarantees a "right of the PEOPLE", clearly not a "right" of a state)

Very interesting article, thank you.