• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Katie Couric being sued for anti gun hatchet job and bogus editing [W:150]

Absentglare said:
Do you seriously believe that the enforcement of slavery could not have played any role in the desirability of the second amendment ?
Click to expand...

unless you can prove it was a main factor, the only reason to bring it up is by the Bannerrhoid movement trying to smear those who support the amendment by guilt through association.

You do know that the concept of prevailing wage statues-both local and the federal Davis-Bacon act were motivated by virulent racism? white union workers in the north got those laws passed when the Democrats ran government because they didn't like blacks from the south moving north who were willing to work for lower wages than the inflated Union rates. However, it would be dishonest today to say union workers who support prevailing wage rules are motivated by racism even though that law had provable racist roots while the second amendment did not
 
trouble13 said:
Your being intellectually dishonest with both arguments.

1. If anything is rooted in racism its gun control laws. The earliest laws restricted blacks from posessing guns.

2. The silence you keep going on about wasnt simply a dramatic pause. They inserted footage out of sequence and changed the context of their response by making those people look unsure about their answer. It was blatantly missleading

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I wasn't talking about racism, i was talking about slavery, but you are, in a way, correct to mention intellectual dishonesty.

They put silence in after the question. As long as the responses remained, the gist was not materially changed.
 
TurtleDude said:
unless you can prove it was a main factor, the only reason to bring it up is by the Bannerrhoid movement trying to smear those who support the amendment by guilt through association.

You do know that the concept of prevailing wage statues-both local and the federal Davis-Bacon act were motivated by virulent racism? white union workers in the north got those laws passed when the Democrats ran government because they didn't like blacks from the south moving north who were willing to work for lower wages than the inflated Union rates. However, it would be dishonest today to say union workers who support prevailing wage rules are motivated by racism even though that law had provable racist roots while the second amendment did not
Click to expand...

YOU are the one who tried to associate disarmament with slavery. I explained to you how guns actually facilitated slavery, by allowing whites to maintain an imbalance of power.
 
Absentglare said:
YOU are the one who tried to associate disarmament with slavery. I explained to you how guns actually facilitated slavery, by allowing whites to maintain an imbalance of power.
Click to expand...

actually you are wrong-gun control facilitated slavery because if blacks could have been armed, slavery would have been much tougher. ITS why the first systemic gun control laws in the USA were passed by KLAN dominated legislatures in the post reconstruction south because the KLAN didn't want the FREED SLAVES being able to shoot back at the night riders and the lynching parties. Gun control in the USA has racist and bigoted roots
 
TurtleDude said:
actually you are wrong-gun control facilitated slavery because if blacks could have been armed, slavery would have been much tougher. ITS why the first systemic gun control laws in the USA were passed by KLAN dominated legislatures in the post reconstruction south because the KLAN didn't want the FREED SLAVES being able to shoot back at the night riders and the lynching parties. Gun control in the USA has racist and bigoted roots
Click to expand...

So you believe that gun control is able to perfectly disarm criminals ?
 
Absentglare said:
So you believe that gun control is able to perfectly disarm criminals ?
Click to expand...

do your posts even bother trying to understand the posts your submissions fail to respond to? the purpose of gun control was not to disarm CRIMINALS but to disarm law abiding folk who gun controllers wanted to oppress, It gave corrupt racist law enforcement the power to arrest blacks who tried to buy or bear arms. it intimidated blacks from using firearms to defend themselves when the KKK raided their churches or homes.
 
TurtleDude said:
do your posts even bother trying to understand the posts your submissions fail to respond to? the purpose of gun control was not to disarm CRIMINALS but to disarm law abiding folk who gun controllers wanted to oppress, It gave corrupt racist law enforcement the power to arrest blacks who tried to buy or bear arms. it intimidated blacks from using firearms to defend themselves when the KKK raided their churches or homes.
Click to expand...

Please address the question.

Are you claiming that gun control laws successfully disarmed slaves ?
 
Absentglare said:
Please address the question.

Are you claiming that gun control laws successfully disarmed slaves ?
Click to expand...

slaves couldn't own guns, it was their masters who kept them disarmed. Gun control laws passed by the Klan attempted to disarm black CITIZENS in the post reconstruction south
 
TurtleDude said:
slaves couldn't own guns, it was their masters who kept them disarmed. Gun control laws passed by the Klan attempted to disarm black CITIZENS in the post reconstruction south
Click to expand...

And yet the "shall not be infringed" was conceived in this context of slave-disarmament courtesy of gun control policy.
 
Absentglare said:
And yet the "shall not be infringed" was conceived in this context of slave-disarmament courtesy of gun control policy.
Click to expand...

what?? that makes even less sense than the other contrarian nonsense you spew in an attempt to fight people who you don't like since we bash Hillary
 
TurtleDude said:
what?? that makes even less sense than the other contrarian nonsense you spew in an attempt to fight people who you don't like since we bash Hillary
Click to expand...

It's just glaringly obvious that the second amendment had far more infringements at inception than it has now.
 
Absentglare said:
It's just glaringly obvious that the second amendment had far more infringements at inception than it has now.
Click to expand...

really-so what federal infringements took place before 1934
 
TurtleDude said:
really-so what federal infringements took place before 1934
Click to expand...

"...On May 8, 1792, Congress passed "[a]n act more effectually to provide for the National Defence, by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States" requiring:

[E]ach and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia...[and] every citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball: or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear, so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise, or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.[119]"

-wikipedia
 
Absentglare said:
"...On May 8, 1792, Congress passed "[a]n act more effectually to provide for the National Defence, by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States" requiring:

[E]ach and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia...[and] every citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball: or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear, so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise, or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.[119]"

-wikipedia
Click to expand...

Where is the infringement?
 
Absentglare said:
"...On May 8, 1792, Congress passed "[a]n act more effectually to provide for the National Defence, by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States" requiring:

[E]ach and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia...[and] every citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball: or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear, so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise, or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.[119]"

-wikipedia
Click to expand...

Where is the infringement?
 
Absentglare said:
It's just glaringly obvious that the second amendment had far more infringements at inception than it has now.
Click to expand...

It is glaringly obvious you have offered not one shred of evidence to support that.
 
Crimefree said:
Where is the infringement?
Click to expand...

Only white men got guns.

Or would you support gun control that federally discriminated on the basis of both race and gender ?

Crimefree said:
It is glaringly obvious you have offered not one shred of evidence to support that.
Click to expand...

Your provably false opinion is irrelevant.
 
Absentglare said:
"...On May 8, 1792, Congress passed "[a]n act more effectually to provide for the National Defence, by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States" requiring:

[E]ach and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia...[and] every citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball: or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear, so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise, or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.[119]"

-wikipedia
Click to expand...

What's wrong with that?
 
blaxshep said:
What's wrong with that?
Click to expand...

several gun haters have claimed that this proves that the founders intended congress to have the power to restrict or ban private citizens from owning certain firearms. its as stupid as saying that if the federal government can require you to have automobile insurance if you drive on federal highways, it means that the congress can ban you from purchasing home insurance, flood insurance or fire insurance
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom