• 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!

If America banned the Second Ammendment tomorrow what would you do?

If America banned the Second Ammendment tomorrow what would you do?

  • Join a violent revolution

    Votes: 20 29.9%
  • Start a National Petition to repeal the act

    Votes: 17 25.4%
  • Move out the Country

    Votes: 2 3.0%
  • Celebrate

    Votes: 2 3.0%
  • Go on with my life and comply with the new law

    Votes: 17 25.4%
  • Other - state opinion below

    Votes: 9 13.4%

  • Total voters
    67
...Protesting peacefully puts you into a government database as possible terrorists which practically destroys that right.....

bull****. I have participated in at least 4 very large peaceful protests in NYC & DC since 9-11, and I assure you that I am in no database. paranoid thinking is silly.
 
Much of America has already crapped on the Second Amendment, so I do not understand the "if" in your question.
 
so you're saying that the USA is now a tyrannical regime?

who says the right to own a gun is an "inalienable" right? The Constitution surely does not.

We've become tyrannical for over 150 years starting with Abraham Lincoln's despotic regime. See American Bastille by John Marshall.

You might want to reread the preamble to the Bill of Rights because it does say that, but in many more words.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.



bull****. I have participated in at least 4 very large peaceful protests in NYC & DC since 9-11, and I assure you that I am in no database. paranoid thinking is silly.

It's not paranoid thinking when the Department of Justice actually says that is what they do. Check the url on the pdf again.
 
Much of America has already crapped on the Second Amendment, so I do not understand the "if" in your question.
just because there are some restrictions and regulations on gun ownership, doesn't mean the 2nd Amendment has been "crapped" upon.

Its silly that folks want us to live like its still 1787. Time moves forward & society evolves with it, folks.
 
We've become tyrannical for over 150 years starting with Abraham Lincoln's despotic regime. See American Bastille by John Marshall.....

uhh...yeaahhh..

how dare that evil Abraham Lincoln, take away the right of the people to own other human beings. Tyrant!!!!!

;)
 
uhh...yeaahhh..

how dare that evil Abraham Lincoln, take away the right of the people to own other human beings. Tyrant!!!!!

;)

Strawman and not factually correct. Lincoln freed not one slave, but he certainly enslaved a lot of people in the north when they protested his war. Like I said before, "Read American Bastille by John Marshall."
 
again, more bull****.

The Proclamation immediately freed 50,000 slaves, with nearly all the rest (of the 3.1 million) freed as Union armies advanced...

Emancipation Proclamation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Proclamation held no force of law because Lincoln lacked the authority to do it since the southern states seceded and he lacked the jurisdiction.

As President, Abraham Lincoln had the power to issue the Emancipation Proclamation. But it was an executive order, not a legislative mandate. The President declared the slaves free, but he had no power to regulate how former "masters" would treat former "possessions."

Presidents execute laws - they don't make them. And, significantly, Lincoln's Proclamation only freed slaves in the Confederate states. (Slaves in states which remained in the Union were not freed until the 13th Amendment was ratified, in December of 1865.)
source

Now you're own link states that the Emancipation Proclamation applied only to the 10 southern states in the Confederacy and left all the slaves in the Union in bondage.

The Proclamation applied only in ten states that were still in rebellion in 1863, thus it did not cover the nearly 500,000 slaves in the slave-holding border states (Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland or Delaware) which were Union states — those slaves were freed by separate state and federal actions.

The only person spouting bull**** would be you.
 
...The only person spouting bull**** would be you.

the Emancipation Proclamation immediately freed all slaves that were in southern territory that has been liberated by the north.

as the Union armies advanced, so did freedom for the slaves they encountered.

yes, Abraham Lincoln freed many slaves.
 
The Proclamation held no force of law because Lincoln lacked the authority to do it since the southern states seceded and he lacked the jurisdiction...

on the contrary, the secession of the CSA was illegal and all Federal laws were still valid over the Southern states, as was the jurisdiction of the Federal government in Washington, D.C.
 
the Emancipation Proclamation immediately freed all slaves that were in southern territory that has ben taken by the north.

as the Union armies advanced, so did freedom for the slaves they encountered.

yes, Abraham Lincoln freed many slaves.

Again, no he did not since the Emancipation Proclamation held no force in law. It was an executive order and exempted all areas under Union control from freeing their slaves. It would be a lot like Queen Elizabeth proclaiming that all Americans in the former British Colonies are now freed from United States income taxes. She certainly can make a proclamation as such, but it has no force of law on US citizens.
 
on the contrary, the secession of the CSA was illegal and all Federal laws were still valid over the Southern states, as was the jurisdiction of the Federal government in Washington, D.C.

Secession is not illegal under the Constitution of the United States. It is a right reserved to the people under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. Try again.

EDIT: This is off topic and bears no resemblance to your original claim that Lincoln wasn't despotic to refute my statement that he was. He (not Congress) suspended Habeus Corpus, declared war, and invaded sovereign nations without the consent of Congress. He also locked up every political opponent and held them without trial in Union forts and ships. American Bastille by John Marshall is all about how Lincoln imprisoned people without trial, specifically Francis Scott Key's grandson in the same fort where his grandfather wrote the national anthem. He closed newspapers that disagreed with him. He even went so far as to expel a sitting member of Congress to Canada, see Representative of Ohio Clarence D. Vallandigham. He even went so far as to arrest all of Maryland's legislature and try to arrest Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States Roger B. Taney because Taney told Lincoln what he was doing was illegal and unconstitutional.

My source for the bulk of this is here.
 
Last edited:
Secession is not illegal under the Constitution of the United States. It is a right reserved to the people under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. Try again.

the States have the right to secede from the Union, in order to preserve the institution of human slavery?

how righteous of you.

tell that to your local black family, and see how they react.
 
the States have the right to secede from the Union, in order to preserve the institution of human slavery?

how righteous of you.

tell that to your local black family, and see how they react.

Appeal to emotion and a strawman argument. The states have the right and the duty to arrest federal expansion of powers even to the point of secession. See the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 plus Virginia's Ratification of the Constitution of the United States. The real reason why the Civil War happened is because Lincoln wanted the taxes from imports and exports. I'll let the man himself speak for himself from his 1861 Inaugural Address.

I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.

In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence, and there shall be none unless it be forced upon the national authority. The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere.
 
Last edited:
Appeal to emotion and a strawman argument. The states have the right and the duty to arrest federal expansion of powers even to the point of secession. See the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 plus Virginia's Ratification of the Constitution of the United States.

do slaves have the right to rebel against their "owners"?

or are they obligated to respect their "owners" private-property rights?

considering the OP, its fascinating that you are arguing in support of a regime that fought to defend the right to own other human beings.

fascinating..and ironic.
 
Last edited:
do slaves have the right to rebel against their "owners"?

or are they obligated to respect their "owners" private-property rights?

considering the OP, its fascinating that you are arguing in support of a regime that fought to defend the right to own other human beings.

fascinating..and ironic.

Ad hominem since I have neither advocated for slavery nor have I endorsed it. I have given you full history not the fairy tale you espouse. Defeat the facts not attack the bearer of those facts.

I find it funny that you cut Lincoln's words on the matter from my post. :lol:
 
Last edited:
tell us again how Lincoln didn't free any slaves.

;)

That's easy. Lincoln didn't free a single slave and I have the documentation to prove it.
 
That's easy. Lincoln didn't free a single slave and I have the documentation to prove it.

that's interesting, cause the facts prove you wrong.

50,000 slaves were immediately freed by the Emancipation Proclamation. These were slaves that lived within CSA territory that had been liberated by the Union. And as the Union got deeper into Southern territory, every slave they encountered was immediately made free by the EP.

Personally, I believe they were born free..and slavery was illegal as soon as the Constitution was ratified.

:)
 
that's interesting, cause the facts prove you wrong.

50,000 slaves were immediately freed by the Emancipation Proclamation. These were slaves that lived within CSA territory that had been liberated by the Union. And as the Union got deeper into Southern territory, every slave they encountered was immediately made free by the EP.

Personally, I believe they were born free..and slavery was illegal as soon as the Constitution was ratified.

:)

Actually, they weren't freed. They were immediately impressed into the Union Army as conscripts for the men which the last I checked conscription is the same as slavery. The women usually were raped and murdered by white Union soldiers.

My personal opinion has no bearing on historical facts and are out of the scope of this discussion.
 
Actually, they weren't freed. They were immediately impressed into the Union Army as conscripts for the men which the last I checked conscription is the same as slavery. The women usually were raped and murdered by white Union soldiers.....

a military draft..is slavery? last time I checked, folks who serve in the military get PAID.

as for the women being raped & murdered, I suspect this is a baseless claim.
 
a military draft..is slavery? last time I checked, folks who serve in the military get PAID.

as for the women being raped & murdered, I suspect this is a baseless claim.

The slaves that were impressed into service were not paid in the beginning and were treated as a contraband of war.

Illustration 13.2 The Union army treated Appalachian slaves like a contraband of war. After a raid on this middle Tennessee plantation, the soldiers conscripted male laborers. The officer is telling them that the elderly, women, and children will not be permitted to accompany the males to the military sites.

After arriving in the city, ex-slaves worked as laborers on the fortifications. They worked for less money and were often exploited. In August of 1862, workers were paid 40 cents, plus rations, a day for work—often they were not paid at all. By November 1863, it was recommended to Barnard that a sum of $1.00 per day to contraband was a fair wage. Additionally, it was recommended that records be kept in order to make sure these workers were treated fairly. source

You certainly do have a very selective definition of slavery since the above examples show that these slaves exchanged a private master for the United States government master. This is the same government that in Dred Scott v Sanford declared slaves to be property not persons.

As for the allegation that this is a baseless claim here's some examples.

Illustration 13.4 The Union army impressed slave women to work as camp laundresses and as aides in military hospitals. These women rarely received their promised wages, and they were frequently evicted from contraband camps when the populations grew too large. Such women faced sexual exploitation and white violence in the camps.

They regularly killed black women who resisted rape. Soldiers in the Union Army had preconceived notions about the relations of slave owners to their female slaves. They believe that black female slaves willingly acquiesced to the sexual seduction of their plantation owners. Not only did the Union soldiers have virulent hatred of the blacks but they also had no appreciation for the actual moral values that the blacks traditionally held. Seven Federal soldiers gang raped a black woman. Thereafter, they held her face down in a nearby puddle of water until she drowned. In Columbia, South Carolina, Union soldiers' gang raped "scores of slave women." source--The Ruling Elite: A Study in Imperialism, Genocide and Emancipation By Deanna Spingola 2011.

So much for being a baseless claim.
 
Last edited:
As others have pointed out, how would those repealing the amendment protect themselves from the danger imposed by the repeal?

I would hazard to say local police?

In the end I have no idea what this has to do with anything. Military or no, this is about what people would do IF it was revoked/removed etc.
 
That's easy. Lincoln didn't free a single slave and I have the documentation to prove it.

The greatest obsticle to Ron Paul is Ron Paul's supporters.

"Republican Party - The Party of Lincoln."

I believe the outcome of the Civil War proved that states may NOT leave the Union. If ANYTHING has been proven, it is that fact.
 
Actually, they weren't freed. They were immediately impressed into the Union Army as conscripts for the men which the last I checked conscription is the same as slavery. The women usually were raped and murdered by white Union soldiers.

My personal opinion has no bearing on historical facts and are out of the scope of this discussion.

The extremes that some white men will go to support slavery and yearn for the Confederacy to rise again is truly amazing.
 
Back
Top Bottom