# 2a Rewrite? Sounds like an abortion amendment.



## Pete7469 (Dec 24, 2021)

*Let's not forget that 30+ years ago the concept of "gay marriage" was publicly laughed at. It was ridiculed widely, it looked as absurd as it was when cartooned.*

*Fast forward to modern day and we see people who "marry" themselves, people who stick their junk into cups of worms, believe they're trans-species, and lunatics like Chunk Yogurt from "The Young Turds" channel who endorse bestiality.*



*These "people" will never stop. They're drones. Mindless, deliberately ignorant, devoted to promoting ignorance and determined to destroy everything normal, logical and realistic.*

*This "professor" is "educated" and these ideas it has will NEVER GO AWAY no matter who hard it is ridiculed, rejected, or especially "compromised " with. The 2A is the last bastion of free people on earth. The globalists who want humans to be their labor resource are pushing as hard as they can to undermine this right. It really has been a long term struggle between elites and regular people.*


*.*


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Dec 24, 2021)

Pete7469 said:


> *Let's not forget that 30+ years ago the concept of "gay marriage" was publicly laughed at. It was ridiculed widely, it looked as absurd as it was when cartooned.
> 
> Fast forward to modern day and we see people who "marry" themselves, people who stick their junk into cups of worms, believe they're trans-species, and lunatics like Chunk Yogurt from "The Young Turds" channel who endorse bestiality.*
> 
> ...


This fails as a strawman fallacy.

The thread premise is a ridiculous lie.


----------



## jackflash (Dec 24, 2021)

Elitist = narcissism. Unfortunately narcissism appears to be a serious problem that refuses to go away as narcissism is today every bit as prevalent as taxation. In all reality narcissism is at the base of every societal problem ever encountered by any & all societies, & looks to be thriving in todays world.









						The Narcissism Epidemic and What We Can Do About It
					

Looking in the mirror at our love of narcissists, part 3.




					www.psychologytoday.com


----------



## cnm (Dec 24, 2021)

Pete7469 said:


> The 2A is the last bastion of free people on earth. The globalists who want humans to be their labor resource are pushing as hard as they can to undermine this right.


This is really funny coming from a nation whose economic base was built on chattel slavery: where the 2a was written to allow the slave states to have the ability to put down slave rebellions without recourse to a federal govt suspected of a lack of sympathy.


----------



## whitehall (Dec 24, 2021)

Maybe that's the end game of the liberal establishment. Increase the size and dilute the effectiveness of the Supreme Court and rewrite the Bill of Rights. First they come for the 2nd Amendment and then they go for the 1st and the rest of them. You wake up one morning and you are living in a Banana Republic.


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 25, 2021)

cnm said:


> This is really funny coming from a nation whose economic base was built on chattel slavery: where the 2a was written to allow the slave states to have the ability to put down slave rebellions without recourse to a federal govt suspected of a lack of sympathy.
> 
> View attachment 579513




Wow....lies, and more lies.....

*With an established legal tradition protecting the right of the people to keep and bear arms coming from England in 1688, it is difficult to argue that the roots of the Second Amendment are racist or meant to deal with potential slave revolts.  The English simply were not in the least bit concerned about the potential for slave revolts and "anti-Blackness" in America when they drafted their Bill of Rights in 1688.*
*
------
*
*Invasions from foreign enemies, American Indians, and pirates, but no mention of "anti-Blackness" or the need to prevent or deal with slave revolts. *


*Why did the writers of the Articles of Confederation go through the trouble of listing out the various threats that necessitated a militia but leave out "anti-Blackness" and slave revolts? *


* There can be only one parsimonious explanation: the framers of the Articles of Confederation saw invasions from enemies, attacks from American Indians, and piracy as real threats to the fledgling states and felt it necessary to specifically mention these potential threats and lay the groundwork for how the individual states and the confederacy as a whole would respond.

-----

 It is here that we find such Founding Fathers as James Madison stating during the Constitutional Convention, "A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty" (hat tip to The Avalon Project at Yale Law School's Lillian Goldman Law Library).  In the Annals of Congress, we find Elbridge Gerry asserting without challenge that the purpose of the declaration of rights (Bill of Rights) is "to secure the people against the mal-administration of Government" and that the purpose and use of the militia "is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty."  These concerns about the threats posed by a large standing army (not by potential slave revolts) were echoed by other Federalists and Anti-Federalists throughout the ratification process and throughout the debates in Congress, when the first ten amendments were proposed.  Indeed, in his first annual message as president in 1801, Thomas Jefferson summed up the prevailing view of the role of the militia best when he said (again, hat tip to The Avalon Project at Yale Law School's Lillian Goldman Law Library):
*


> *Uncertain as we must ever be of the particular point in our circumference where an enemy may choose to invade us, the only force which can be ready at every point and competent to oppose them, is the body of neighboring citizens as formed into a militia. On these, collected from the parts most convenient, in numbers proportioned to the invading foe, it is best to rely, not only to meet the first attack, but if it threatens to be permanent, to maintain a defence until regulars may be engaged to relieve them.*


*It is not necessary to rely solely on history to disprove the "racist Second Amendment" argument.  A rational look at the Second Amendment and subsequent actions taken by Congress proves that the Second Amendment had nothing to do with race. *

* For instance, if it were true that the Second Amendment was meant to be a tool to deal with potential slave revolts, then the adoption of the Thirteenth Amendment, which abolished slavery in 1865, would have made the Second Amendment moot. *

* That Congress did not repeal the Second Amendment when the Thirteenth Amendment was adopted, nor has repealed it since that time, only strengthens the argument that the Second Amendment was not and is not intended to deal with potential slave revolts.  Furthermore, that slavery was not just limited to black people of African descent, but extended to American Indians and even black people enslaving people of their own race, proves that even if was a tool to deal with potential slave revolts, it was far from being "anti-Black" or even racist.  These inconvenient truths do not fit the narrative.

----

As far as the Second Amendment is concerned, the truth is quite discernible: far from being a tool to disenfranchise or oppress, the Second Amendment is and always has been a mechanism for safeguarding, securing, and protecting the people from foreign threats and an overreaching government.  Indeed, the Second Amendment is all about preventing the shackles of slavery from ever being applied to the people, and should that unlucky day come, it is all about shattering those shackles.  I

The Second Amendment: Not Racist, but Definitely Pro-Freedom






*
*Spooner used the Second Amendment to argue that slavery was unconstitutional. Since a slave is a person who is (or can be) forbidden to possess arms, and the Second Amendment guarantees that all persons can possess arms, no person in the United States can be a slave.**
------
The right of a man "to keep and bear arms," is a right palpably inconsistent with the idea of his being a slave. Yet the right is secured as effectually to those whom the States presume to call slaves, as to any whom the States condescend to acknowledge free.

==============


*
*For 20 years now, a well-meaning law professor has been peddling the fiction that the Second Amendment – guaranteeing the right of Americans to keep and bear arms – was adopted to protect slavery. He first proposed this in a 1998 law review article and trotted it out again in a recent New York Times op-ed.

The trouble is: It’s untrue. Not a single one of America’s founders is known to have suggested such a purpose.

When the Redcoats came to disarm the colonists, the American patriots relied on the right to “have arms for their Defense,” as stated in the English Declaration of Rights of 1689.

In 1776, Pennsylvania declared: “That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves, and the state.” Vermont copied that language in its constitution, which explicitly abolished slavery. Massachusetts and North Carolina adopted their own versions.

When the states debated adoption of the Constitution without a bill of rights in 1787-88, Samuel Adams proposed the right to bear arms in Massachusetts’s ratification convention. The Dissent of the Minority did so in Pennsylvania, and the entire New Hampshire convention demanded recognition of the right.

There was no connection to slavery in any of these historical antecedents.

In his articles, Professor Carl T. Bogus of Roger Williams University speculates that George Mason’s and Patrick Henry’s demands in the Virginia ratification convention could have been motivated to protect slavery. Not so.

Mason recalled that “when the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised … to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”

And Patrick Henry implored: “The great object is, that every man be armed.” The ensuing debate concerned defense against tyranny and invasion – not slavery.

New York, North Carolina and Rhode Island joined in the demand for what became the Second Amendment. The right to bear arms had universal support.

It was the denial of the right of all “the people” to bear arms that supported slavery. 

The Supreme Court’s notorious Dred Scott decision held that African-Americans could not be regarded as citizens, for otherwise they could hold political meetings and “keep and carry arms wherever they went.” Frederick Douglass advocated Second Amendment rights for all, and Sojourner Truth carried guns in helping slaves to escape.*

The Second Amendment had nothing to do with slavery


----------



## Silent Warrior (Dec 25, 2021)

cnm said:


> This is really funny coming from a nation whose economic base was built on chattel slavery: where the 2a was written to allow the slave states to have the ability to put down slave rebellions without recourse to a federal govt suspected of a lack of sympathy.
> 
> View attachment 579513



Perhaps you should have kept your nonsense thoughts to yourself.  It is better to stay quiet and be thought a fool than open your mouth and remove all doubt.  Your showing of your total lack of understanding of the constitution has removed all doubt.  You can't fix stupid.


----------



## Pete7469 (Dec 25, 2021)

Silent Warrior said:


> Perhaps you should have kept your nonsense thoughts to yourself.  It is better to stay quiet and be thought a fool than open your mouth and remove all doubt.  Your showing of your total lack of understanding of the constitution has removed all doubt.  You can't fix stupid.


*Not that I'm defending that bed wetting parasite, but something needs to be addressed.*
*
NONE of the leftist pieces of shit who have posted on this thread or pretty much any other 2A related thread have posted "thoughts" or "conclusions" they developed themselves based on independent analysis of data, facts and truth. Every single one of these genetic disasters are parroting inane drivel they read somewhere else and are more than happy to paste that insipid shit. Most of these vacuous turds do not have the will, much less the capacity to THINK.
*
*The fact that there are "people" who have credentials as "educators", let alone ordinary diplomas and can not understand what 4 year old's recognized about gender when I was growing up 45 years ago. As far as I'm concerned these universities and colleges should be facing class action lawsuits due to their malpractice with malicious intent. The idea that there is a "professor" anywhere within the western hemisphere that would suggest rewriting the 2A without specifically addressing the fact that all free individuals have a right to own and carry the tools that not only ended feudalism, but allowed a nation to shuck the oppression of despotic rule is offensive to anyone that is a cognizant adult.*
*
The fact that the same jabbering Left Syndrome Retard inserted text that would do more to defend abortion proves leftists are criminal sociopaths. This isn't just the ridiculous ramblings of a junkie hobo muttering to themselves as they fish through a trash can looking for something edible. Lunatics like this are dead serious in their intent to crush individual rights, collectivize labor, and exterminate "surplus" human resources. Do not fall victim to the idea that collectivists pursue disarmament out of any concern for "public safety", they endeavor to do so for **commissar** safety.


.*


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 25, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> This fails as a strawman fallacy.
> The thread premise is a ridiculous lie.


Says the known liar.


----------



## ThunderKiss1965 (Dec 26, 2021)

cnm said:


> This is really funny coming from a nation whose economic base was built on chattel slavery: where the 2a was written to allow the slave states to have the ability to put down slave rebellions without recourse to a federal govt suspected of a lack of sympathy.
> 
> View attachment 579513


The education system in this country has completely gone to shit. The 2nd Amendment was written to protect the citizenry from a tyrannical government.


----------



## cnm (Dec 26, 2021)

Silent Warrior said:


> Your showing of your total lack of understanding of the constitution has removed all doubt.


I suppose actually reading history will do that. Luckily you are safe.


----------



## cnm (Dec 26, 2021)

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> The education system in this country has completely gone to shit. The 2nd Amendment was written to protect the citizenry from a tyrannical government.


You've accepted the propaganda fed to you since birth rather than reading actual history. Fair enough, after all, that's what made America great.
The tyrannical government in this case was a federal government suspected of a lack of sympathy to the slave states' concerns over slave uprisings. 
The Crackers wanted to be sure they could put down rebellions themselves. In freedom's name of course.


----------



## ThunderKiss1965 (Dec 26, 2021)

cnm said:


> You've accepted the propaganda fed to you since birth rather than reading actual history. Fair enough, after all, that's what made America great.
> The tyrannical government in this case was a federal government suspected of a lack of sympathy to the slave states' concerns over slave uprisings.
> The Crackers wanted to be sure they could put down rebellions themselves. In freedom's name of course.


Propaganda I can produce historical quotes by everyone involved with the Constitution that proves the 2nd was about protecting the citizens from a tyrannical government with no mention of putting down a slave rebellion. All you have is yours and the opinion of a bunch of loons who call everything racist.

You show your true nature by using the word cracker . Your no better than the white supremacist douchebag.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 26, 2021)

cnm said:


> The Crackers wanted to be sure they could put down rebellions themselves. In freedom's name of course.


"The crackers" did not need an amendment to the constitution for that.


----------



## Pete7469 (Dec 27, 2021)

cnm said:


> I suppose actually reading history will do that. Luckily you are safe.


*Being indoctrinated with historical revisionist agitprop is not the same as actually reading history. Try reading The Federalist Papers, which was written by men who actually lived at the time and were in attendance of the Constitutional Convention.*

*Pieces of shit like you prefer to be "educated" in echo chambers by red diaper baby "intellectual" academics that you believe validate your reactionary hatred of individual rights, limited government and free market capitalism.

You're NOT "EDUCATED", you're a vacuous drone that parrots inane bolshevik agitprop. 

. *


----------



## cnm (Dec 27, 2021)

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> You show your true nature by using the word cracker .


Well it was the Crackers who insisted upon it. Virginian Crackers to be precise.


----------



## cnm (Dec 27, 2021)

Pete7469 said:


> Pieces of shit like you prefer to be "educated" in echo chambers by red diaper baby "intellectual" academics that you believe validate your reactionary hatred of individual rights, limited government and free market capitalism.


The Russians were always jealous that Americans believed their own propaganda. I see nothing has changed.
'Individual rights' !!! 
What a laugh.


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 27, 2021)

cnm said:


> You've accepted the propaganda fed to you since birth rather than reading actual history. Fair enough, after all, that's what made America great.
> The tyrannical government in this case was a federal government suspected of a lack of sympathy to the slave states' concerns over slave uprisings.
> The Crackers wanted to be sure they could put down rebellions themselves. In freedom's name of course.




That is a lie....as you have been shown over and over.......slavery wasn't mentioned anywhere n the debates on the 2nd Amendment.....

*With an established legal tradition protecting the right of the people to keep and bear arms coming from England in 1688, it is difficult to argue that the roots of the Second Amendment are racist or meant to deal with potential slave revolts.  The English simply were not in the least bit concerned about the potential for slave revolts and "anti-Blackness" in America when they drafted their Bill of Rights in 1688.*
*------
Invasions from foreign enemies, American Indians, and pirates, but no mention of "anti-Blackness" or the need to prevent or deal with slave revolts.  Why did the writers of the Articles of Confederation go through the trouble of listing out the various threats that necessitated a militia but leave out "anti-Blackness" and slave revolts?  There can be only one parsimonious explanation: the framers of the Articles of Confederation saw invasions from enemies, attacks from American Indians, and piracy as real threats to the fledgling states and felt it necessary to specifically mention these potential threats and lay the groundwork for how the individual states and the confederacy as a whole would respond.
-----*
*It is here that we find such Founding Fathers as James Madison stating during the Constitutional Convention, "A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty" (hat tip to The Avalon Project at Yale Law School's Lillian Goldman Law Library).  In the Annals of Congress, we find Elbridge Gerry asserting without challenge that the purpose of the declaration of rights (Bill of Rights) is "to secure the people against the mal-administration of Government" and that the purpose and use of the militia "is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty."  These concerns about the threats posed by a large standing army (not by potential slave revolts) were echoed by other Federalists and Anti-Federalists throughout the ratification process and throughout the debates in Congress, when the first ten amendments were proposed.  Indeed, in his first annual message as president in 1801, Thomas Jefferson summed up the prevailing view of the role of the militia best when he said (again, hat tip to The Avalon Project at Yale Law School's Lillian Goldman Law Library):*


> *Uncertain as we must ever be of the particular point in our circumference where an enemy may choose to invade us, the only force which can be ready at every point and competent to oppose them, is the body of neighboring citizens as formed into a militia. On these, collected from the parts most convenient, in numbers proportioned to the invading foe, it is best to rely, not only to meet the first attack, but if it threatens to be permanent, to maintain a defence until regulars may be engaged to relieve them.*


*It is not necessary to rely solely on history to disprove the "racist Second Amendment" argument.  A rational look at the Second Amendment and subsequent actions taken by Congress proves that the Second Amendment had nothing to do with race.  For instance, if it were true that the Second Amendment was meant to be a tool to deal with potential slave revolts, then the adoption of the Thirteenth Amendment, which abolished slavery in 1865, would have made the Second Amendment moot.  That Congress did not repeal the Second Amendment when the Thirteenth Amendment was adopted, nor has repealed it since that time, only strengthens the argument that the Second Amendment was not and is not intended to deal with potential slave revolts.  Furthermore, that slavery was not just limited to black people of African descent, but extended to American Indians and even black people enslaving people of their own race, proves that even if was a tool to deal with potential slave revolts, it was far from being "anti-Black" or even racist.  These inconvenient truths do not fit the narrative.
----
As far as the Second Amendment is concerned, the truth is quite discernible: far from being a tool to disenfranchise or oppress, the Second Amendment is and always has been a mechanism for safeguarding, securing, and protecting the people from foreign threats and an overreaching government.  Indeed, the Second Amendment is all about preventing the shackles of slavery from ever being applied to the people, and should that unlucky day come, it is all about shattering those shackles.  I
The Second Amendment: Not Racist, but Definitely Pro-Freedom



Spooner used the Second Amendment to argue that slavery was unconstitutional. Since a slave is a person who is (or can be) forbidden to possess arms, and the Second Amendment guarantees that all persons can possess arms, no person in the United States can be a slave.
------
The right of a man "to keep and bear arms," is a right palpably inconsistent with the idea of his being a slave. Yet the right is secured as effectually to those whom the States presume to call slaves, as to any whom the States condescend to acknowledge free.
==============

For 20 years now, a well-meaning law professor has been peddling the fiction that the Second Amendment – guaranteeing the right of Americans to keep and bear arms – was adopted to protect slavery. He first proposed this in a 1998 law review article and trotted it out again in a recent New York Times op-ed.*

*The trouble is: It’s untrue. Not a single one of America’s founders is known to have suggested such a purpose.*

*When the Redcoats came to disarm the colonists, the American patriots relied on the right to “have arms for their Defense,” as stated in the English Declaration of Rights of 1689.

In 1776, Pennsylvania declared: “That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves, and the state.” Vermont copied that language in its constitution, which explicitly abolished slavery. Massachusetts and North Carolina adopted their own versions.

When the states debated adoption of the Constitution without a bill of rights in 1787-88, Samuel Adams proposed the right to bear arms in Massachusetts’s ratification convention. The Dissent of the Minority did so in Pennsylvania, and the entire New Hampshire convention demanded recognition of the right.*

*There was no connection to slavery in any of these historical antecedents.*

*In his articles, Professor Carl T. Bogus of Roger Williams University speculates that George Mason’s and Patrick Henry’s demands in the Virginia ratification convention could have been motivated to protect slavery. Not so.

Mason recalled that “when the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised … to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”

And Patrick Henry implored: “The great object is, that every man be armed.” The ensuing debate concerned defense against tyranny and invasion – not slavery.

New York, North Carolina and Rhode Island joined in the demand for what became the Second Amendment. The right to bear arms had universal support.*

*It was the denial of the right of all “the people” to bear arms that supported slavery. *

*The Supreme Court’s notorious Dred Scott decision held that African-Americans could not be regarded as citizens, for otherwise they could hold political meetings and “keep and carry arms wherever they went.” Frederick Douglass advocated Second Amendment rights for all, and Sojourner Truth carried guns in helping slaves to escape.*
*The Second Amendment had nothing to do with slavery*


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 27, 2021)

cnm said:


> Well it was the Crackers who insisted upon it. Virginian Crackers to be precise.




Hmmmm....Do the people of Pennsylvania and Vermont = crackers?

*In 1776, Pennsylvania declared: “That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves, and the state.” Vermont copied that language in its constitution, which explicitly abolished slavery. Massachusetts and North Carolina adopted their own versions.*


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 27, 2021)

cnm said:


> The Russians were always jealous that Americans believed their own propaganda. I see nothing has changed.
> 'Individual rights' !!!
> What a laugh.




Slavery was brought to the new World by the Europeans and Africans.....the United States went to war to end the practice.......


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Dec 27, 2021)

Pete7469 said:


> *Let's not forget that 30+ years ago the concept of "gay marriage" was publicly laughed at. It was ridiculed widely, it looked as absurd as it was when cartooned.
> 
> Fast forward to modern day and we see people who "marry" themselves, people who stick their junk into cups of worms, believe they're trans-species, and lunatics like Chunk Yogurt from "The Young Turds" channel who endorse bestiality.*
> 
> ...


Here is my re-write:

"Neither Congress or any State shall enact legislation that has the intent or the effect of limiting in any way the right to own, possess, or carry ANY weapon, without limitation of any kind, for any reason whatsoever.  For the sole purpose of providing guidance to Congress, the United States Supreme Court, or any State or Local government as to the level and scope of this amendment to the powers stripped from all government authority, this amendment means, for example, that any person, regardless of status under the law, shall be unobstructed in carrying any firearm or other weapon, including a belt-fed fully automatic machine gun, into Congress, any Court, any school, and any other building.  No law limiting the right of any individual to obtain, own, possess, carry, or use a firearm or other weapon shall be upheld by any Court and any such law passed by Congress or any State Legislature shall be immediately void.  Any government official who, with the intent of limiting the individual right to own, possess, or carry ANY weapon, attempts to enact a law that has the effect of limiting the rights preserved in this amendment shall be guilty of high treason, with a minimum sentence of death upon conviction."

There.  Let's do this.


----------



## Pete7469 (Dec 27, 2021)

cnm said:


> The Russians were always jealous that Americans believed their own propaganda. I see nothing has changed.
> 'Individual rights' !!!
> What a laugh.


*These bed wetters REALLY ARE THAT STUPID folks....*

*Some democrook whipped a black man 180 years ago, and the picture of the resulting scars are supposed to promote the idea that the modern democrook agenda to disarm everyone would result in less brutality?

How do pieces of shit that stupid evade natural selection? It's a serious national crisis at this point. All the nuclear weapons on earth and those that may be held by intergalactic civilizations light years away, falling asteroids, volcanoes, along with all the diseases, jihadists, car accidents, obesity, cancers, and venomous snakes combined are not as much of a danger to humanity as asinine, bed wetting, Lefts Syndrome jabbering retarded drones like cnm with a stack of mail in ballots.

Pieces of shit like that are the reason I ENDORSE, ENCOURAGE and would VOTE TO FUND THE ABORTIONS of all leftist whores. Decent conservative women won't even consider abortion, but the weakest biologically impaired women who pollute the gene pool with beta male soy boys and "gender  fluid" dykes are a serious threat to our species.

I am not joking about this either. There is actual scientific data to back up my assertion, or I would not have expressed it.









						Universe 25: The Mouse "Utopia" Experiment That Turned Into An Apocalypse
					

Universe 25: The Mouse "Utopia" Experiment That Turned Into An Apocalypse




					www.iflscience.com
				



*


----------



## cnm (Dec 27, 2021)

Pete7469 said:


> These bed wetters REALLY ARE THAT STUPID folks....


This lunatic will have me believe that when the 2A was written it was to guarantee blacks the individual right to bear firearms, rather than a mechanism to keep them suppressed and enslaved. What a hoot. He can't see past the propaganda he's been fed since birth.

Which has been the whole point of feeding that propaganda from birth, of course.


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 27, 2021)

cnm said:


> This lunatic will have me believe that when the 2A was written it was to guarantee blacks the individual right to bear firearms. What a hoot. He can't see past the propaganda he's been fed since birth.




No...shitbird......but slavery was not the reason for the 2nd Amendment...you idiot...as you have been shown over and over again.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Dec 27, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> Says the known liar.


The thread premise fails as a strawman fallacy, nothing but a ridiculous lie.

No one seeks to ‘rewrite’ the Second Amendment, no one seeks to ‘scrap’ the Second Amendment.

Conservatives do nothing but lie.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 27, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Conservatives do nothing but lie.


Says the known liar.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Dec 27, 2021)

cnm said:


> This is really funny coming from a nation whose economic base was built on chattel slavery


That's the most ignorant thing I've ever heard...lol


----------



## ThunderKiss1965 (Dec 27, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Slavery was brought to the new World by the Europeans and Africans.....the United States went to war to end the practice.......


That would have never been possible with out the Arabic slave traders.


----------



## cnm (Dec 28, 2021)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> That's the most ignorant thing I've ever heard...lol


That's because you don't know your own history, only the propaganda fed to you since birth.

The US' economic base was built by the North processing the produce of the South, which was obtained through unpaid coerced labour.


----------



## Pete7469 (Dec 28, 2021)

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> That would have never been possible with out the Arabic slave traders.


Or the Portuguese merchants.


----------



## Pete7469 (Dec 28, 2021)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> That's the most ignorant thing I've ever heard...lol


And that bed wetter would flat line a polygraph if you asked him if he believes that shit. Of course he would have to ignore the fact that it wasn't until after  slavery was abolished that we really began to industrialize.


----------



## Pete7469 (Dec 28, 2021)

cnm said:


> This lunatic will have me believe that when the 2A was written it was to guarantee blacks the individual right to bear firearms, rather than a mechanism to keep them suppressed and enslaved. What a hoot. He can't see past the propaganda he's been fed since birth.
> 
> Which has been the whole point of feeding that propaganda from birth, of course.


*This bed wetting parasite believes that shit. It's as if the first man that legally owned a black man in North America wasn't also black, or that slavery was legalized by the colonial court system under the British government long before the revolution, and the first time the democrooks passed any gun control laws was after abolition. It was after that when the NRA was established and laws that confirmed all citizens INCLUDING BLACKS had the freedom of the bill of rights. There were also NO LAWS that I'm aware of that prevented free blacks, and there were many, from owning guns prior to emancipation.*
*

Yet this jabbering retard will continue to insist slavery had shit to do with the 2A. Ignorance that profound is truly remarkable.


*


----------



## Pete7469 (Dec 28, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The thread premise fails as a strawman fallacy, nothing but a ridiculous lie.
> 
> No one seeks to ‘rewrite’ the Second Amendment, no one seeks to ‘scrap’ the Second Amendment.
> 
> Conservatives do nothing but lie.











						Law prof suggests rewrites of First and Second Amendments that do not mention free press or bearing arms
					

Mary Anne Franks, the Michael R. Klein Distinguished Scholar Chair at the University of Miami School of Law, has penned a proposal for a “redo” of the First and Second Amendments in a Boston Globe op-ed.




					www.foxnews.com
				




*Checkmate motherfucker.


.*


----------



## fncceo (Dec 28, 2021)

cnm said:


> where the 2a was written to allow the slave states to have the ability to put down slave rebellions without recourse to a federal govt suspected of a lack of sympathy.



Then why did they not just leave the right to bear arms to the states themselves?  

Obviously, the non-slave states had no reason to bear arms.

In fact, the first battle of the Revolutionary War was an attempt by The British to seize stocks of gunpowder from the American populace, effectively disarming them.

The British, as well as our Founding Fathers, were fully aware of the need to disarm the populace in order to revoke their freedoms.


----------



## cnm (Dec 28, 2021)

fncceo said:


> Then why did they not just leave the right to bear arms to the states themselves?


I imagine because the slave patrols weren't state bodies.


fncceo said:


> The British, as well as our Founding Fathers, were fully aware of the need to disarm the populace in order to revoke their freedoms.


Oh. So that's why the slaves were disarmed. Pretty clever, those founding fathers, eh?

I'm a little surprised to read no comment on the slaves' right to bear arms being abridged in the land of sacred individual rights. Perhaps they didn't reside in free states.


----------



## cnm (Dec 28, 2021)

The funny thing is that you guys can't come to terms with the massive contradictions in your founding documents so you pretend they don't exist.

Being fed propaganda since birth assists that pretence.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 28, 2021)

cnm said:


> The funny thing is that you guys can't come to terms with the massive contradictions in your founding documents so you pretend they don't exist.


^^^^
This is a lie, on several levels.


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 28, 2021)

cnm said:


> I imagine because the slave patrols weren't state bodies.
> 
> Oh. So that's why the slaves were disarmed. Pretty clever, those founding fathers, eh?
> 
> I'm a little surprised to read no comment on the slaves' right to bear arms being abridged in the land of sacred individual rights. Perhaps they didn't reside in free states.




No...they lived in the states that would eventually be controlled by the democrat party.


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 28, 2021)

cnm said:


> The funny thing is that you guys can't come to terms with the massive contradictions in your founding documents so you pretend they don't exist.
> 
> Being fed propaganda since birth assists that pretence.




There are no contradictions...


----------



## dblack (Dec 28, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> This fails as a strawman fallacy.
> 
> The thread premise is a ridiculous lie.


You fail as a pompous, and pretty much always dead wrong, judge of fallacy.


----------



## fncceo (Dec 28, 2021)

cnm said:


> I imagine because the slave patrols weren't state bodies.



State sanctioned.  Duly authorized in slave states (even allowed to operate in some non-slave states).

The US Constitution was a patchwork of compromise and contradiction on the subject of slavery.  The issue that nearly prevented our nation from becoming at all was eventually settled nearly 100 years later after a bloody and protracted war.

Constitutional Amendments (13th, 14th, and 15th) that finally gave freed Blacks unabridged citizenship automatically imbued them with the right to Bear Arms, Free Speech, and the Right to Vote (50 years before women of any race could vote in America).

It took another 100 years to remove the impediments that various states had imposed to attempt to circumvent those Amendments but, eventually, the issue of slavery was resolved.


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 28, 2021)

fncceo said:


> State sanctioned.  Duly authorized in slave states (even allowed to operate in some non-slave states).
> 
> The US Constitution was a patchwork of compromise and contradiction on the subject of slavery.  The issue that nearly prevented our nation from becoming at all was eventually settled nearly 100 years later after a bloody and protracted war.
> 
> ...



*It took another 100 years to remove the impediments that various states had imposed to attempt to circumvent those Amendments but, eventually, the issue of slavery was resolved.*


And which political party was responsible for those impediment?


----------



## cnm (Dec 28, 2021)

fncceo said:


> It took another 100 years to remove the impediments that various states had imposed to attempt to circumvent those Amendments but, eventually, the issue of slavery was resolved.


And guys still pretend the 2A was about freedom, rather than its suppression.


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 28, 2021)

cnm said:


> And guys still pretend the 2A was about freedom, rather than its suppression.




Not pretending........you have to lie and distort.....that's all you have.


----------



## fncceo (Dec 28, 2021)

cnm said:


> And guys still pretend the 2A was about freedom, rather than its suppression.



If you feel oppressed by my firearms ... THANKS!

That's a pretty good bonus.


----------



## cnm (Dec 28, 2021)

fncceo said:


> State sanctioned.


But not state entities.


----------



## cnm (Dec 28, 2021)

fncceo said:


> If you feel oppressed by my firearms ... THANKS!


Absolutely not. We have them under reasonable control. For instance I don't think you'd be able to bring any handguns or military style semi automatic rifles here. You're welcome to all the licit long guns you'd like, no limit.


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 28, 2021)

cnm said:


> Absolutely not. We have them under reasonable control. For instance I don't think you'd be able to bring any handguns or military style semi automatic rifles here. You're welcome to all the licit long guns you'd like, no limit.




Really?

*But in 2020, gun crime hit a new peak.*
*
Police figures show 2399 people were charged with 4542 firearm-related offences, nearly double that of a decade earlier.
*
*In total, 1862 firearms were seized under sections 6 or 18 of the Search and Surveillance Act, more than double the 860 that were seized a decade earlier.



*









						Rise in gun crime despite government clampdown after terror attack
					

The government's clampdown on firearms and seizures of high-powered semi-automatic weapons has had no impact on a rise in gun crime and violence in New Zealand.




					www.rnz.co.nz


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Dec 29, 2021)

cnm said:


> The funny thing is that you guys can't come to terms with the massive contradictions in your founding documents so you pretend they don't exist.
> 
> Being fed propaganda since birth assists that pretence.


You're not an American, so FUCK OFF!!!


----------



## Captain Caveman (Dec 29, 2021)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> You're not an American, so FUCK OFF!!!


And that pisses you off. Your brain is stuck in a loop. It's going round and round saying, "If you don't like it go home, if you don't like it go home".

And unless you're a native American, you too are a foreigner so you have to fuck off too.


----------



## fncceo (Dec 29, 2021)

Captain Caveman said:


> And that pisses you off. Your brain is stuck in a loop. It's going round and round saying, "If you don't like it go home, if you don't like it go home".
> 
> And unless you're a native American, you too are a foreigner so you have to fuck off too.



I wouldn't expect a Brit to listen to any American who tells them to give up their monarchy and replace subject with citizens.


----------



## Pete7469 (Dec 29, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The thread premise fails as a strawman fallacy, nothing but a ridiculous lie.
> 
> No one seeks to ‘rewrite’ the Second Amendment, no one seeks to ‘scrap’ the Second Amendment.
> 
> Conservatives do nothing but lie.


*
This video does another scholarly look at the inane proposals of "intellectual" academic neo-bolsheviks, and of course bed wetting parasites like C_Clayton_Jones will deny it's even a reality and continue to assert it's all a lie in spite of the documented reality of the matter, because bed wetting leftist diseases like him exist in a false reality and will condemn everyone who refuses to share his deliberate ignorance. Never mind the democrook efforts of well over a century to regulate the 2A out of existence through **Jim Crow Style Laws**, a Tax like the NFA or the laws passed that force people to jump through hoops in order to purchase guns, get permits to even keep them in their houses and purchase ammo or their efforts to marginalize the weapons with magazine restrictions and the banning of the most popular models.

Leftist parasites ARE DESPERATE to scrap the 2A. These ghouls dance in the blood of victims when incidents they can exploit for political gains occur. It absolutely has FUCK ALL TO DO WITH "PUBLIC SAFETY", and has everything to do with commissar safety. Had the Kulaks and millions of others brutally murdered and staved by the bolshevik government had the sort of 2A freedom that existed in the US at the time the soviet union would have collapsed before Molotov could have signed a pact with Ribbentrop, and any German offensive would have ground to a halt as soon as their supply lines expanded beyond the rifle range of local hunters. Authoritarian elitist sociopaths will never stop attacking this fundamental right, and sniveling, servile malignant pieces of shit like C_Clayton_Jones, cnm, and the rest of these repulsive wads of genetic garbage who parrot global collectivist agitprop will NEVER STOP seeking to undermine freedom at every opportunity.


.


.*


----------



## Pete7469 (Dec 29, 2021)

Captain Caveman said:


> And that pisses you off. Your brain is stuck in a loop. It's going round and round saying, "If you don't like it go home, if you don't like it go home".
> 
> And unless you're a native American, you too are a foreigner so you have to fuck off too.


*If you were born in the territory of the US to parents that legally resided within said boundaries, you're a NATIVE AMERICAN. You owe no allegiance to any other nation and if you wish to remain within said boundaries, you owe the nation and the COTUS your loyalty.

Or get the fuck out.*

*I would say the same thing to anyone born in the UK, Sri Lanka, Fiji, Iraq, North Korea, Poland and all nations of the world. If you don't like where you live, find a place more acceptable, petition that government to accept your entry. As far as the opinions go regarding the politics of other countries, especially when you live in a declining shithole like the UK, unfuck yourself before lecturing people from anywhere else.*

*. *


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Dec 29, 2021)

Captain Caveman said:


> And that pisses you off. Your brain is stuck in a loop. It's going round and round saying, "If you don't like it go home, if you don't like it go home".
> 
> And unless you're a native American, you too are a foreigner so you have to fuck off too.


I was born here.  

The day I go to another country and try to tell them how to live their lives is the day you or cmn can talk.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Dec 29, 2021)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> I was born here.
> 
> The day I go to another country and try to tell them how to live their lives is the day you or cmn can talk.


Your brain is stuck in a loop.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Dec 29, 2021)

Captain Caveman said:


> Your brain is stuck in a loop.


What loop?

We get machine guns?

Yes.  I am stuck on that loop until it happens.  We will get there one way or another.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Dec 29, 2021)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> What loop?
> 
> We get machine guns?
> 
> Yes.  I am stuck on that loop until it happens.  We will get there one way or another.


If you don't like it, go home, if you don't like it, go home, if you don't like it, go home. The classic phrase to foreigners you guys make when you've been proved wrong.


----------



## Pete7469 (Dec 29, 2021)

Captain Caveman said:


> Your brain is stuck in a loop.


*So is yours.*


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Dec 29, 2021)

Captain Caveman said:


> If you don't like it, go home, if you don't like it, go home, if you don't like it, go home. The classic phrase to foreigners you guys make when you've been proved wrong.


1.  Nobody proved ANYTHING wrong, so get that shit the fuck outta here.
2.  Would it be appropriate for me to go to Canada and start demanding a bunch of shit?
3.  I was born here.  This is my home.  If you want different, you should stay where you are or go to a better place.
4.  Fuck you.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Dec 29, 2021)

Nothing makes me want to beat the shit out of the UK a *THIRD *time like those asswipes showing up here and telling us how to live.   Bunch of limey fucking cocksuckers can get bent and eat shit.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Dec 29, 2021)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> 1.  Nobody proved ANYTHING wrong, so get that shit the fuck outta here.
> 2.  Would it be appropriate for me to go to Canada and start demanding a bunch of shit?
> 3.  I was born here.  This is my home.  If you want different, you should stay where you are or go to a better place.
> 4.  Fuck you.


If you don't like it, go home, if you don't like it, go home, if you don't like it, go home


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Dec 29, 2021)

Captain Caveman said:


> If you don't like it, go home, if you don't like it, go home, if you don't like it, go home


Yep.

Now FUCK OFF


----------



## cnm (Dec 29, 2021)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> You're not an American, so FUCK OFF!!!


I want to learn about your tradition of individual freedom.


----------



## cnm (Dec 29, 2021)

fncceo said:


> I wouldn't expect a Brit to listen to any American who tells them to give up their monarchy and replace subject with citizens.


Ignorant and boring.









						Types of British nationality
					

The different types of British nationality explained - British citizen, British overseas territories citizen, British overseas citizen, British subject, British national (overseas), British protected person




					www.gov.uk


----------



## JustAGuy1 (Dec 29, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> This fails as a strawman fallacy.
> 
> The thread premise is a ridiculous lie.



Well you are an idiot so there is that.


----------



## cnm (Dec 30, 2021)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> The day I go to another country and try to tell them how to live their lives is the day you or cmn can talk.


It's almost as though your actual recorded history doesn't really exist.


Oh that's right.



It's all CRT unt verboten.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Dec 30, 2021)

JustAGuy1 said:


> Well you are an idiot so there is that.


A strawman fallacy is where a lie is contrived about one’s opponent, in this case the idiotic lie that anyone seeks to ‘rewrite,’ ‘scrap,’ or otherwise ‘undermine’ the Second Amendment.

Then the lie is attacked by the creator of the lie claiming ‘victory.’

There is no nefarious plot to disarm Americans – this sort of moronic sophistry and demagoguery is typical of the dishonest, reprehensible right.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 30, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> There is no nefarious plot to disarm Americans – this sort of moronic sophistry and demagoguery is typical of the dishonest, reprehensible right.


This is only true if the Democrats who promise to do this are lying.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Jan 12, 2022)

cnm said:


> It's almost as though your actual recorded history doesn't really exist.
> 
> 
> Oh that's right.
> ...


Don't lay the military/industrial complex war crimes on me.  I, personally, have never gone to another country with the intent of telling them how to live their lives.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Jan 12, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> A strawman fallacy is where a lie is contrived about one’s opponent, in this case the idiotic lie that anyone seeks to ‘rewrite,’ ‘scrap,’ or otherwise ‘undermine’ the Second Amendment.
> 
> Then the lie is attacked by the creator of the lie claiming ‘victory.’
> 
> There is no nefarious plot to disarm Americans – this sort of moronic sophistry and demagoguery is typical of the dishonest, reprehensible right.


 

Then, let us have machine guns.  

Otherwise, fuck you.


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 17, 2022)

cnm said:


> This is really funny coming from a nation whose economic base was built on chattel slavery: where the 2a was written to allow the slave states to have the ability to put down slave rebellions without recourse to a federal govt suspected of a lack of sympathy.


That is incorrect.  The Second Amendment was written to prevent tyranny.




cnm said:


> The tyrannical government in this case was a federal government suspected of a lack of sympathy to the slave states' concerns over slave uprisings.
> The Crackers wanted to be sure they could put down rebellions themselves. In freedom's name of course.


That is incorrect.  What our Founding Fathers feared was another King James II.




cnm said:


> Absolutely not. We have them under reasonable control. For instance I don't think you'd be able to bring any handguns or military style semi automatic rifles here. You're welcome to all the licit long guns you'd like, no limit.


There is no such thing as a military-style semi-automatic rifle.

Military-style rifles are full-auto or burst-fire.


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 17, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> There is no nefarious plot to disarm Americans


Yes there is.  Progressives just lie about their intentions.




C_Clayton_Jones said:


> No one seeks to ‘rewrite’ the Second Amendment, no one seeks to ‘scrap’ the Second Amendment.


Yes they do.  Progressives hate the Second Amendment because it stands in the way of their gun ban agenda.  They are furious over their inability to abolish it.


----------



## Pete7469 (Mar 17, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> That is incorrect.  The Second Amendment was written to prevent tyranny.
> 
> That is incorrect.  What our Founding Fathers feared was another King James II.
> 
> ...


*I would argue That the 1st Amendment was written to prevent tyranny. The freedom to speak out, organize, protest, publish editorials,  expose corruption, and petition or speak truth to power in front of interested people is what is supposed to prevent tyranny.*
*
We live in a reality where the media that is supposed to do these things instead promotes tyranny, indoctrinates people, spreads agitprop, suppresses dissent and manipulates the public into accepting tyranny through fear.

You're correct that the Founders feared another despotic ruler, and I don't know if they could have foreseen the dystopian horrors that collectivist leftwing sociopaths have wrought in the last 110 years or they would have added amendments that forbade the federal government from establishing any new form of tax, or spending more than it took in. They may have banned the federal government from establishing any sort of uniformed armed law enforcement.

Let's face it, M-Forgeries and "AR-15's" along with "AK Style" rifles are "military-style semi-automatic rifles" and most bedwetting leftist tumors are terrified of them. That said they're no more of an "assault weapon" than a large rock in a long tube sock when an aggressor deliberately hits a peaceful citizen with it.

The M-14, which in my opinion should have been the weapon we retained until the AR10 was fully tested and perfected was limited deliberately to be semi-auto even though attempts were made to make it full auto. The military issued semi-autos because full auto or "burst" was a waste of ammo. The problem is that the bed wetters will point to 1903 bolt action rifles, and therefore ALL  "Bolt Action" Rifles as "Sniper Rifles" if they're allowed to cross that hurdle.
*
*These are collectivist sociopaths we're dealing with. Not "people" who want to create a "safer" world with less crime. Otherwise Jussie Smolete would have already been fucked to death in a Chicago jail, thousands of asswipes who dye their hair with lime kool aid would be facing long prison sentences and Trump would be welcoming Ukraine into NATO while China recognized Taiwan as an independent country.*


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 17, 2022)

Pete7469 said:


> Let's face it, M-Forgeries and "AR-15's" along with "AK Style" rifles are "military-style semi-automatic rifles" and most bedwetting leftist tumors are terrified of them.


I do not accept the existence of any such category.  I will only apply the term "military-style" to guns that are full-auto or burst-fire (and therefore were all but banned some 88 years ago).




Pete7469 said:


> The problem is that the bed wetters will point to 1903 bolt action rifles, and therefore ALL  "Bolt Action" Rifles as "Sniper Rifles" if they're allowed to cross that hurdle.


I do not intend to allow them to ever cross that hurdle.  I am content to fight about the meaning of terms like "assault weapon" and "military style" until the end of time.

For what it's worth, we are likely to see Strict Scrutiny applied to the Second Amendment this summer.  Once that happens, all these unconstitutional laws are doomed.  Or at least most of them are.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 18, 2022)

Pete7469 said:


> *I would argue That the 1st Amendment was written to prevent tyranny. The freedom to speak out, organize, protest, publish editorials,  expose corruption, and petition or speak truth to power in front of interested people is what is supposed to prevent tyranny.*
> 
> *We live in a reality where the media that is supposed to do these things instead promotes tyranny, indoctrinates people, spreads agitprop, suppresses dissent and manipulates the public into accepting tyranny through fear.
> 
> ...




Yep.......when they say they want to ban "Military weapons," they are looking at the deer hunting rifle...a rifle in current use by Militaries around the world.....also, they are looking at shotguns...another weapon used by militaries around the world...

They have started using the concept of banning "military weapons," because they know that any law that is passed with that intent, will allow them to come after hunting rifles, "sniper rifles," and shotguns.......

And when people realize that that is their goal, it will be too late......the democrats will shrug and say "ooops.....we didn't realize those were also military weapons....." and ban them anyway....


----------



## Abatis (Mar 18, 2022)

cnm said:


> I want to learn about your tradition of individual freedom.



No, you have no interest in that, only denigrating America and our rights.

You are just a contrarian, completely useless in any discussion, only intending to disrupt and sabotage debate.


----------



## Abatis (Mar 18, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> A strawman fallacy is where a lie is contrived about one’s opponent, in this case the idiotic lie that anyone seeks to ‘rewrite,’ ‘scrap,’ or otherwise ‘undermine’ the Second Amendment.
> 
> Then the lie is attacked by the creator of the lie claiming ‘victory.’
> 
> There is no nefarious plot to disarm Americans – this sort of moronic sophistry and demagoguery is typical of the dishonest, reprehensible right.



You have to realize you are conjuring a conundrum (and enigma?) by denouncing something as a strawman fallacy by employing the strawman fallacy yourself . . .


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 19, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Yep.......when they say they want to ban "Military weapons," they are looking at the deer hunting rifle...a rifle in current use by Militaries around the world.....also, they are looking at shotguns...another weapon used by militaries around the world...
> They have started using the concept of banning "military weapons," because they know that any law that is passed with that intent, will allow them to come after hunting rifles, "sniper rifles," and shotguns.......


This is why I never give in on their attempts to arbitrarily assign a scary name to a gun.

If you allow them to get away with arbitrarily assigning a scary name to a gun, they will then use that scary name as justification for banning the gun regardless of the true facts about that gun.

Any label that includes anything like "assault" or "military" or "war" I automatically interpret as referring *only* to full-auto weapons and explosives.

And then I tell them that all of those weapons were already banned 88 years ago.


----------

