• 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!

Richmond Pro-gun Protest

Harshaw said:
I know. Bogus and Hartmann have been thoroughly eviscertated, which we'll also do if CaughtInThe ever actually attempts to make his case, which by now it's pretty clear he's not going to do.
Click to expand...

TurtleDude said:
He cannot: Carl Bogus was hoping to undermine what became the Heller decision before it happened, by trying to tie racism to second amendment supporters. It didn't work, and Bogus-a third rate law professor at a third rate law school, was pretty much ignored by mainstream top drawer scholars. Amar, in his lecture to alumni at the 2016 Yale Reunion at Sheffield-Sterling-Strathcona Hall-was asked about that very theory and dismissed it as "bunk" noting that some of the most anti slave states and founders-were keen supporters of the second.
Click to expand...

How Slave Owners Dictated the Language of the 2nd Amendment

By contrast, James Madison, the author of the Second Amendment, wrote his amendment with his eye firmly fixed on practical politics. He introduced the amendment during Virginia’s debate over the ratification of the Constitution because Virginia Governor Patrick Henry saw danger lurking in Article 1, Section 8, of the Constitution, which gives Congress the power to provide for “organizing, arming, and disciplining” militias.

Henry feared that without checks upon it, Congress could undermine the ability of militias in Virginia and elsewhere in the South to suppress slave uprisings and pursue runaway slaves.

The militia issue was important enough for Henry to see it as grounds for opposing ratification of the Constitution...
Click to expand...
 
Master Debator said:
So? We've proven we can take your rights away and you'll give up your guns where we tell you to and when we tell you to. The only thing protecting the second amendment as tenuous as that protection is, is folks thinking there will be political or violent backlash. They are less and less afraid of political backlash because gun control has positive support. The promise of it is partly what helped Democrats take Virgina. If there is no violent backlash, and you all just stand around with your dicks in your hands for a little and go home then what? Who's worried about that? Lol
Click to expand...

That hasn't been proven.
 
apdst said:
That hasn't been proven.
Click to expand...

So you all haven't been denied the right to carry your gun onto capital grounds because of "threats"?

:lamo

I wonder if we're going to that excuse more and more...
 
CaughtInThe said:
"Henry then bluntly laid it out: “If the country be invaded, a state may go to war, but cannot suppress [slave] insurrections [under this new Constitution]. If there should happen an insurrection of slaves, the country cannot be said to be invaded. They cannot, therefore, suppress it without the interposition of Congress. . . . Congress, and Congress only [under this new Constitution], can call forth the militia.”

And why was that such a concern for Patrick Henry?

“In this state,” he said, “there are two hundred and thirty-six thousand blacks, and there are many in several other states. But there are few or none in the Northern States. . . . May Congress not say, that every black man must fight? Did we not see a little of this last war? We were not so hard pushed as to make emancipation general; but acts of Assembly passed that every slave who would go to the army should be free.”

Patrick Henry was also convinced that the power over the various state militias given to the federal government in the new Constitution could be used to strip the slave states of their slave-patrol militias. He knew the majority in the North opposed slavery, and he worried that they’d use the Constitution to free the South’s slaves (a process then called “manumission”).

The abolitionists would, he was certain, use that power (and, ironically, this is pretty much what Abraham Lincoln ended up doing): “[T]hey will search that paper [the Constitution], and see if they have power of manumission,” said Henry. “And have they not, sir? Have they not power to provide for the general defence and welfare? May they not think that these call for the abolition of slavery? May they not pronounce all slaves free, and will they not be warranted by that power?

“This is no ambiguous implication or logical deduction. The paper [proposed Constitution] speaks to the point: they have the power in clear, unequivocal terms, and will clearly and certainly exercise it.”

He added, “This is a local matter, and I can see no propriety in subjecting it to Congress."
Click to expand...

Ah. I did miss this, mea culpa. Got lost in the shuffle.

As I figured, I see you're just quoting Thom Hartmann verbatim without even giving him credit.

Your and his theory that this proves the Second Amendment was enacted for the preservation of slavery is deeply confounded by the fact that Patrick Henry and George Mason both voted against the entire Constitution, and urged the Virginia delegation to do so.

Neither Henry nor Mason had anything to do with drafting the Second Amendment, because they were not in Congress, and in any case, they both opposed the Bill of Rights entirely. The actual founder who drafted the Second Amendment, Madison, a political enemy of both Henry and Mason, had much to say about the purpose of the Second Amendment having nothing to do whatsoever with slavery.

So tell me -- how do the words of men (though you only quoted one here) who opposed the Constitution, opposed the Bill of Rights, and had nothing to do with the drafting of the Second Amendment "prove" what the Second Amendment was for?

Hartmann's theory is especially confounded by the fact that putting down slave rebellions falls under police powers of the state that don't need the Second Amendment to be protected. Any "slave patrols" fall under deputized posses or regular law enforcement. The Second Amendment has nothing to do with them, and "slave patrols" could still be called up even if there were no Second Amendment or no militia.

Not to mention that anti-slavery proponents of the Second Amendment in northern states supported it, in part, to keep their state militias under their control so they could not be called up by the federal government to suppress slave rebellions in the south.

So, you're taking the words of those who opposed the Constitution, opposed the Bill of Rights, and had nothing to do with the drafting of the Second Amendment to "prove" a Second Amendment theory which doesn't even make sense, because Hartmann misunderstood what the "slave patrols" were and what authority they operated under.
 
Last edited:
TurtleDude said:
I doubt there are very many muslim men who can legally own assault rifles-given the spiteful democrat party's ban on those things and how many of those muslim men came here after 1986.
Click to expand...

Whining about definitions.

Typical.
 
calamity said:
Will it be peaceful or will there be a riot? Time will tell.

tweet

Odd for them to choose MLK Day, IMO. But, hey. maybe these guys all believe that the guy who was shot wanted there to be pro-gun rallies on his B-Day. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Don't you mean the small penis rally? All I see are people who don't know how to carry guns, and how it's no different than wearing a ***** hat.
 
TurtleDude said:
Educate us as to what you think an "assault rifle" is.
Click to expand...

I'd say this fat ass's 0.50 cal qualifies

EOukAIsX0AAZvXi
 
BTW, judging by the lard in today's gun crowd, I'd estimate the "civil war ends by supper time.
 
TurtleDude said:
Educate us as to what you think an "assault rifle" is.
Click to expand...

That’s ok.

Tell us what you think a bunch of rural rednecks would do if they saw a big group of black men or people in Muslim dress demonstrating for the right to bear arms.

Think it might help?
 
Harshaw said:
Neither Henry nor Mason had anything to do with drafting the Second Amendment, because they were not in Congress, and in any case, they both opposed the Bill of Rights entirely.
Click to expand...

holy crap.

did they have anything to do with any of the rest of the constitution or BoR?
 
apdst said:
White supremacists don't want black folks to own guns. Can you see the stupidity of your claim?
Click to expand...

The only stupidity I see is in the twisting of what I said to say something else entirely.

Follow close, and slowly: Some are.
 
CaughtInThe said:
holy crap.

did they have anything to do with any of the rest of the constitution or BoR?
Click to expand...

State how what I said was wrong. Make a counterargument.

And address everything else I said.
 
So, the protesters with guns are still very very close to the Capitol building

Whats a few more feet going to make a difference?
 
Did CNN just report of no incidents at the Virginia Gun Rally?

That is what some on here didn't want to hear

Oh my....
 
Luther said:
Did CNN just report of no incidents at the Virginia Gun Rally?

That is what some on here didn't want to hear

Oh my....
Click to expand...

Yep. All those cucks who wanted to start race wars or do violence ain't doing ****.

:thumbs:
 
Master Debator said:
Yep. All those cucks who wanted to start race wars or do violence ain't doing ****.

:thumbs:
Click to expand...

Filling in your holes as I often do

The ones you're talking about are a tiny.... tiny.... very tiny part of this rally(wink)

Keep trying though

Remember, it was the British who went to confiscate the Patriots Munitions
 
Luther said:
Filling in your holes as I often do

The ones you're talking about are a tiny.... tiny.... very tiny part of this rally(wink)

Keep trying though

Remember, it was the British who went to confiscate the Patriots Munitions
Click to expand...

You mean it was a bunch of British imperialist slavers trying to confiscate weapons of racist slaving capitalists. My answer to that is so? It's a shame they didn't kill more of one another.

:shrug:
 
Master Debator said:
You mean it was a bunch of British imperialist slavers trying to confiscate weapons of racist slaving capitalists. My answer to that is so? It's a shame they didn't kill more of one another.

:shrug:
Click to expand...
You mean it was a bunch of British imperialist slavers trying to confiscate weapons of racist slaving capitalists.
Click to expand...

Instead of "MasterDebator" how about "MasterDistrator"?

I just knew slavery was coming in there somewhere!(LOL)

Nice try though
 
Last edited:
Luther said:
Instead of "MasterDebator" how about "MasterDistrator"?

I just knew slavery was coming from somewhere!(LOL)

Nice try though
Click to expand...

You're the one who brought up Patriots. I just thought it was weird you venerating a bunch of racist slavers while you wax on about government tyranny. But perhaps you're just unaware that they were racist slavers?

:unsure13:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom