• 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!

[W:898]The Right To keep and Bear Arms Is Quite Clear:

Actually what they were was white conservatives.

conservative is a fluid term as is liberal. It has to be seen in the context of the times. When the wall was coming down-conservatives were the hard core communist authoritarians.
 
wrong, I am a wealthy libertarian. I want government to be restricted by the tenth amendment at the federal level and agnostic on social issues. I have no use for the bible thumping types.

Look at you, trying to distance "Tentherism" from authoritarianism. How cute!! :lamo
In the end, tentherism just gives license to a different KIND of authoritarian.
 
Yes, just what I thought, not serious.

It's simple math. The NRA and their right-wing fellow travellers don't want everyone to have guns. They want whites to have them. Preferably rural republican voting ones. In their 'libertarian' fantasy of a coming race/culture/2nd civil war (TM), they are the ones who are armed, not the libs, lesbians and Latinos.

In my version of this fantasy however, if everyone was armed and willing to protect their freedom, then the right-wing minority would be sorely outgunned and unable to force their will to discriminate upon others.

So arm the lot of them, if that's what the gun nuts really want. We know it is not.
 
Look at you, trying to distance "Tentherism" from authoritarianism. How cute!! :lamo
In the end, tentherism just gives license to a different KIND of authoritarian.

I am going to laugh at such a silly misunderstanding
 
It's simple math. The NRA and their right-wing fellow travellers don't want everyone to have guns. They want whites to have them. Preferably rural republican voting ones. In their 'libertarian' fantasy of a coming race/culture/2nd civil war (TM), they are the ones who are armed, not the libs, lesbians and Latinos.

In my version of this fantasy however, if everyone was armed and willing to protect their freedom, then the right-wing minority would be sorely outgunned and unable to force their will to discriminate upon others.

So arm the lot of them, if that's what the gun nuts really want. We know it is not.

Credible proof needed and your attempt to justify gun restrictions by pretending the other side is just as bad, is really pathetic
 
But it is not nearly as wrong as labeling white slave owners Democrats.

Well what were they in 1850? they sure as hell weren't republicans.
 
Yet they were the conservatives of the times.

They were what today are the republicans.

really? how many modern republicans support an agrarian based slave institution? The only institutional racism currently being patently supported is affirmative action and again-its rich white Democrat party elites who push that racist program.
 
What does that have to do with it? Why are you throwing context out now? Is the truth so inconvenient?

You are confusing a fluid term concerning political philosophy with an actual American Political Party
 
1) where do you get off claiming I love the groups you CALL militias?

2) what experience have you had in say gun fights or related issues?

3) the People of Warsaw was a far different group than the Jews in the ghetto

Gee, other than the numerous times you've defended the militia thugs?

You throwing a tantrum over that is extremely odd. It's not just me who points out that deer hunting in no way qualifies you to shoot an actual person. That is why militaries send people to boot camp and other such training programs. Even then historically speaking trained soldiers have been hesitant about pulling the trigger when push comes to shove.

What percentage of soldiers pulled the trigger during world wars? One episode of 'Black Mirror' states that people were often reluctant to fire at their enemies during the world wars. Is the statement true? - Quora

Men Against Fire: How Many Soldiers Actually Fired Their Weapons at the Enemy During the Vietnam War

Now, I don't deny that some of your inbred buddies are likely sociopaths and have no compunction with killing the idea of killing other human beings, but the majority of them? Not so much. It just goes to show how flat out ignorant you are about warfare.

3) The Jews were part of the people of Warsaw, and like the other people of Warsaw they obtain plenty of weapons. Again, it didn't save them.
 
Why do we even HAVE the right to keep and bear arms?

"Today we need a nation of minute men; citizens who are not only prepared to take up arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as a basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom." - JFK [1961]

"A man’s rights rest in three boxes. The ballot-box, the jury-box, and the cartridge-box." - Frederick Douglas


“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” - Thomas Jefferson

Preservation of Freedom. That's my reason. Tell us yours!

Jefferson and his crowd used them to oppress slaves.
 
Well what were they in 1850? they sure as hell weren't republicans.

They were conservatives.

Republicans were considered flaming eyed radicals and liberals in the 1850s.
 
But it is not nearly as wrong as labeling white slave owners Democrats.

They were conservatives, and conservatives still support their statues.
 
You are confusing a fluid term concerning political philosophy with an actual American Political Party
Not at all. You are denying that political parties are based on certain political philosophies. That the two parties in question switched platforms and subsequently their members switched being aligned with the original party only demonstrated my point.
 
They were conservatives.

Republicans were considered flaming eyed radicals and liberals in the 1850s.


Yep, same with the patriots who opposed the monarchy in 1776. But they were nothing like the current crop of "liberals" who are collectivists
 
Not at all. You are denying that political parties are based on certain political philosophies. That the two parties in question switched platforms and subsequently their members switched being aligned with the original party only demonstrated my point.

The Democrats were authoritarian anti freedom in 1850 and are currently authoritarian and anti freedom collectivists now
 
Yep, same with the patriots who opposed the monarchy in 1776. But they were nothing like the current crop of "liberals" who are collectivists

Whereas conservatism has been "collectivist" from the get go, as one sees in the South.
 
The Democrats were authoritarian anti freedom in 1850 and are currently authoritarian and anti freedom collectivists now

Trump's a liberal?
 
I believe people of color, Hispanics, minorities, African Americans especially should keep and bear arms to protect themselves from the tyranny of their former slave masters, ensure their rights are protected and enforce their right to vote in elections. Muslims must be armed and ready to defend their places of worship; Jews as well. To that end the NRA needs an inclusiveness policy - let's call it 'affirmative action'. People of color must take back their neighborhoods and communities from the tyranny of the police: they must turn up at confederate monuments and ensure that these symbols of oppression are torn down at gunpoint. Moreover should big gubmint come to take away their medicare and medicaid or even coverage for pre-existing conditions, these minorities must be ready to stand and fight.

We all on board?

Agreed. All minorities should oppose the oppressive democrats that have been on our backs for generations.

The Racist History of the Democratic Party

" Most people are either a Democrat by design, or a Democrat by deception. That is either they were well aware the racist history of the Democrat Party and still chose to be Democrat, or they were deceived into thinking that the Democratic Party is a party that sincerely cared about Black people.

History reveals that every piece of racist legislation that was ever passed and every racist terrorist attack that was ever inflicted on African Americans, was initiated by the members of the Democratic Party. From the formation of the Democratic Party in 1792 to the Civil Rights movement of 1960's, Congressional records show the Democrat Party passed no specific laws to help Blacks, every law that they introduced into Congress was designed to hurt blacks in 1894 Repeal Act. The chronicles of history shows that during the past 160 years the Democratic Party legislated Jim Crows laws, Black Codes and a multitude of other laws at the state and federal level to deny African Americans their rights as citizens.

History reveals that the Republican Party was formed in 1854 to abolish slavery and challenge other racist legislative acts initiated by the Democratic Party.

Some called it the Civil War, others called it the War Between the States, but to the African Americans at that time, it was the War Between the Democrats and the Republicans over slavery. The Democrats gave their lives to expand it, Republican gave their lives to ban it.

During the Senate debates on the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, it was revealed that members of the Democratic Party formed many terrorist organizations like the Ku Klux Klan to murder and intimidate African Americans voters. The Ku Klux Klan Act was a bill introduced by a Republican Congress to stop Klan Activities. Senate debates revealed that the Klan was the terrorist arm of the Democratic Party.

History reveals that Democrats lynched, burned, mutilated and murdered thousands of blacks and completely destroyed entire towns and communities occupied by middle class Blacks, including Rosewood, Florida, the Greenwood District in Tulsa Oklahoma, and Wilmington, North Carolina to name a few.

After the Civil War, Democrats murdered several hundred black elected officials (in the South) to regain control of the southern government. All of the elected officials up to 1935 were Republicans. As of 2004, the Democrat Party (the oldest political party in America) has never elected a black man to the United States Senate, the Republicans have elected three.

History reveals that it was Thaddeus Stevens, a Radical Republican that introduced legislation to give African Americans the so-called 40 acres and a mule and Democrats overwhelmingly voted against the bill. Today many white Democrats are opposed to paying African Americans trillions of dollars in Reparation Pay, money that should be paid by the Democratic Party.

History reveals that it was Abolitionists and Radical Republicans such as Henry L. Morehouse and General Oliver Howard that started many of the traditional Black colleges, while Democrats fought to keep them closed. Many of our traditional Black colleges are named after white Republicans.

Congressional records show it was Democrats that strongly opposed the passage of the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments. These three Amendments were introduced by Republicans to abolish slavery, give citizenship to all African Americans born in the United States and, give Blacks the right to vote."
 
Whereas conservatism has been "collectivist" from the get go, as one sees in the South.

Only by those on the left who don't understand the term. The fact is-it is left-wingers who want more government, less individual autonomy and more collectivism. Supporting gun restrictions and gun bans is anti individual freedom and the left has a near monopoly on that proclivity.
 
That has to be one of the most myopic claims I have seen in months given this is the POST I was initially responding to



You tell me who introduced racially conflict to this thread.

here's your post
are you suggesting blacks take up arms against white Democrats?

why are you trying so hard to discuss the race of those who bear guns
 
Gee, other than the numerous times you've defended the militia thugs?

You throwing a tantrum over that is extremely odd. It's not just me who points out that deer hunting in no way qualifies you to shoot an actual person. That is why militaries send people to boot camp and other such training programs. Even then historically speaking trained soldiers have been hesitant about pulling the trigger when push comes to shove.

What percentage of soldiers pulled the trigger during world wars? One episode of 'Black Mirror' states that people were often reluctant to fire at their enemies during the world wars. Is the statement true? - Quora

Men Against Fire: How Many Soldiers Actually Fired Their Weapons at the Enemy During the Vietnam War

Now, I don't deny that some of your inbred buddies are likely sociopaths and have no compunction with killing the idea of killing other human beings, but the majority of them? Not so much. It just goes to show how flat out ignorant you are about warfare.

3) The Jews were part of the people of Warsaw, and like the other people of Warsaw they obtain plenty of weapons. Again, it didn't save them.

when you post silly crap like that, no one will take you seriously. The rest of your post is nothing more than low grade insults trying to masquerade as a valid argument.
 
I support your right to bear arms, please support mine not to own or carry. I do not have guns in my home, nor do I want someone bringing a firearm into my home or business. Live and let live.

That is your prerogative.

Now, don't infringe on other people's rights who do choose to own and bring guns into their homes.
 
Back
Top Bottom