Right to Bear Arms: Canada vs. US

[frigidweirdo]

You've always been in favor of the Right to Bear Arms, but do you actually know what the Right to Bear Arms is?

Do I know exactly what it says in the Bill of Rights off the top of my head? No.
I actually didn't even know Canada did not have that in their Bill of Rights until yesterday (watching Who Wants To Be A Millionaire) - how's that for a confession!

So, you think it has nothing to do with crime rate? yes or no?

The Right to Bear Arms is the right to be in the militia. Nothing else.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The right was given to the people, not the militia.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The right was given to the people in the militia, as made clear in Art. I, sec. 8, clause 15 & 16. Only THE PEOPLE acting under the authority of the officers appointed by the State and trained in the discipline prescribed by The Congress.

Notwithstanding the biased opinion of Scalia, the NRA and its followers.

Total bullshit.

The people ARE the militia, unorganized militia. Neither the King nor elected government has the right to disarm the people.

In reference to your poster. What part.... do you... not understand?"

The part where criminals have their right infringed, in prison and outside of prison. I don't understand that. Can you please explain how it is "shall not be infringed"?

 

[frigidweirdo]

You've always been in favor of the Right to Bear Arms, but do you actually know what the Right to Bear Arms is?

Do I know exactly what it says in the Bill of Rights off the top of my head? No.
I actually didn't even know Canada did not have that in their Bill of Rights until yesterday (watching Who Wants To Be A Millionaire) - how's that for a confession!

So, you think it has nothing to do with crime rate? yes or no?

The Right to Bear Arms is the right to be in the militia. Nothing else.

Another yokel that doesn't understand the function of a comma

Sent from my Y538 using Tapatalk

And what the hell does a comma have to do with this? I think you need to go read some of my later posts.

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

Read this too, you might learn something that doesn't appear in commas.

The comna is "and". You claim that the right is only for militia. It is for the militia AND the people

No, a comma is not "and" and no, I have never claimed that the right is only for the militia. Where do you make up this rubbish. Go actually READ what the hell I've written instead of making crap up.

The right is NOT for the militia. The right is there to protect the militia. Go read my previous posts.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The Founding Fathers on the Second Amendment

“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!”

George Mason, co-author of the Second Amendment



“I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” – Speech in the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 14, 1778

“That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.” – Virginia Declaration of Rights, June 12, 1776

Richard Henry Lee, Anti-Federalist



“And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless necessary for the defense of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of grievances; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers or possessions.” – Debates of the Massachusetts Convention of February 6, 1788; Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 1788 (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)

George Washington

What the militia is, is neither here nor there in this debate. It's what the right to keep arms and the right to bears arms mean.

 

[2aguy]

The Right to Bear arms is simply enshrined in the Constitution...it exists without the constitution...it is not granted by the Constitution......

and 5 Human, lawyers have no right to place limits on it.

 

[EverCurious]

In the beginning, all militias were unorganized. They were the men (and even women) of each town who could be called upon as the first defense. Originally the US didn't even have a standing army, because the people feared a standing army. So we had militias, comprised of every able bodied man, who was at that time /required/ by law to own a weapon... Later we created the Army, and then the national guard, but we never stopped having unorganized militias; comprised of regular non-service men and women who desire to protect their homes, cities, and states.

-----

From the nation's founding through the early 1900s, the United States maintained only a minimal army and relied on state militias, directly related to the earlier Colonial militias to supply the majority of its troops.[4] As a result of the Spanish–American War, Congress was called upon to reform and regulate the training and qualification of state militias. In 1903, with passage of the Dick Act, the predecessor to the modern-day National Guard was formed. It required the states to divide their militias into two sections. The law recommended the title "National Guard" for the first section, known as the organized militia, and "Reserve Militia" for all others.[5]

During World War I, Congress passed the National Defense Act of 1916, which required the use of the term "National Guard" for the state militias and further regulated them. Congress also authorized the states to maintain Home Guards, which were reserve forces outside the National Guards being deployed by the Federal Government.[6]

In 1933, with passage of the National Guard Mobilization Act, Congress finalized the split between the National Guard and the traditional state militias by mandating that all federally funded soldiers take a dual enlistment/commission and thus enter both the state National Guard and the National Guard of the United States, a newly created federal reserve force.

The National Defense Act of 1947 created the Air Force as a separate branch of the Armed Forces and concurrently created the Air National Guard of the United States as one of its reserve components, mirroring the Army's structure.

-----

The respective state National Guards are authorized by the Constitution of the United States. As originally drafted, the Constitution recognized the existing state militias, and gave them vital roles to fill: "to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasion." (Article I, Section 8, Clause 15). The Constitution distinguished "militias," which were state entities, from "Troops", which were unlawful for states to maintain without Congressional approval. (Article I, Section 10, Clause 3). Under current law, the respective state National Guards and the State Defense Forces are authorized by Congress to the states and are referred to as "troops." 32 U.S.C. § 109.

Although originally state entities, the Constitutional "Militia of the Several States" were not entirely independent because they could be federalized. According to Article I, Section 8; Clause 15, the United States Congress is given the power to pass laws for "calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions." Congress is also empowered to come up with the guidelines "for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress" (clause 16). The President of the United States is the commander-in-chief of the state militias "when called into the actual Service of the United States." (Article II, Section 2).

The traditional state militias were redefined and recreated as the "organized militia"—the National Guard, via the Militia Act of 1903. They were now subject to an increasing amount of federal control, including having arms and accouterments supplied by the central government, federal funding, and numerous closer ties to the Regular Army.

 

[EverCurious]

The Army:

The Continental Army consisted of troops from all 13 colonies. When the American Revolutionary War began at the Battles of Lexington and Concord in April 1775, the colonial revolutionaries did not have an army. Previously, each colony had relied upon the militia, made up of part-time civilian-soldiers, for local defense, or the raising of temporary "provincial regiments" during specific crises such as the French and Indian War. As tensions with Great Britain increased in the years leading up to the war, colonists began to reform their militia in preparation for the potential conflict. Training of militiamen increased after the passage of the Intolerable Acts in 1774. Colonists such as Richard Henry Lee proposed creating a national militia force, but the First Continental Congress rejected the idea.[2]

-----

The multiple failures and fiascos of the War of 1812 convinced Washington that thorough reform of the War Department was necessary. Secretary of War John C. Calhoun reorganized the department into a system of bureaus, whose chiefs held office for life, and a commanding general in the field, although the Congress did not authorize this position. Through the 1840s and 1850s, Winfield Scott was the senior general, only retiring at the start of the American Civil War in 1861. The bureau chiefs acted as advisers to the Secretary of War while commanding their own troops and field installations. The bureaus frequently conflicted among themselves, but in disputes with the commanding general, the Secretary of War generally supported the bureaus. Congress regulated the affairs of the bureaus in detail, and their chiefs looked to that body for support.[4]

Calhoun set up the Bureau of Indian Affairs in 1824, the main agency within the War Department for dealing with Native Americans until 1849, when the Congress transferred it to the newly founded Department of the Interior.[5][6]

Between 1815 and 1860, the main role of the Army was control of Indians in the West, and manning coast artillery stations at major ports. Most of the forces were stationed on the frontier, or and coastal defense units near seaports.[7]

At the outset of the American Civil War the regular U.S. army was small and generally assigned to defend the nation's frontiers from attacks by Native Americans. As one after another Southern state seceded many experienced officers and men resigned or left to join the Confederacy, further limiting the regular army's abilities.

The attack on Fort Sumter by South Carolina militia marked the beginning of hostilities. Both sides recruited large numbers of men into a new Volunteer Army, recruited and formed by the states. Regiments were recruited locally, with company officers elected by the men. Although many officers in the regular army accepted commissions in the new volunteer units outsiders were not usually welcome as officers, unless they were surgeons whose value was obvious.[15] Colonels – often local politicians who helped raise the troops – were appointed by the governors, and generals were appointed by President Abraham Lincoln.

The Volunteer Army was so much larger than the Regular Army that entirely new units above the regimental level had to be formed. The grand plan involved geographical theaters, with armies (named after rivers such as the Army of the Potomac in the Eastern Theater) comprising brigades, divisions and corps headquarters.[16]

The rapidly growing armies were relatively poorly trained when the first major battle of the war occurred at Bull Run in the middle of 1861. The embarrassing Union defeat and subsequent inability of the Confederacy to capitalize on their victory resulted in both sides spending more time organizing and training their green armies. Much of the subsequent actions taken in 1861 were skirmishes between pro-Union and pro-Confederacy irregular forces in border states like Missouri and Kentucky.

In 1862 the war became much more bloody, though neither side was able to gain a lasting strategic advantage over the other. However, the decisive battles of Gettysburg in the east and Vicksburg in the west allowed the momentum of the war to shift in favor of the Union in 1863. Increasingly, Confederate forces were outmatched by the more numerous and better equipped Union forces, whose greater population and economic resources became critical factors as the war became one of attrition. An increasingly effective naval blockade further damaged the Southern war economy.

By 1864, long-term Union advantages in geography, manpower, industry, finance, political organization and transportation were overwhelming the Confederacy. Grant fought a remarkable series of bloody battles with Lee in Virginia in the summer of 1864. Lee's defensive tactics resulted in higher casualties for Grant's army, but Lee lost strategically overall as he could not replace his casualties and was forced to retreat into trenches around his capital, Richmond, Virginia. Meanwhile, in the West, William Tecumseh Sherman captured Atlanta in 1864. His March to the Sea destroyed a hundred-mile-wide swath of Georgia, with little Confederate resistance. In 1865, the Confederacy collapsed after Lee surrendered to Grant at Appomattox Courthouse.

In all, 2.2 million men served in the Union army; 360,000 of whom died from all causes – two-thirds from disease. The Volunteer Army was demobilized in summer 1865.

----

Learning from our mistakes in not having a well trained coordinated army for national defense we set about creating the "modern" US armed forces (Army, Air Force, Navy) - a standing army who would be ready at a moments notice.

Prior to that though, the entire defense of the United States rested in the hands of unorganized, and oft untrained, militias; usually private in that they belonged to a city or township rather than the state like the National Guard came to be. Those militiamen, were farmers, immigrants, and pretty much anyone who was willing to defend their home, town, state from invasion etc.

That is the militia the 2nd refers to, not the organized militias that didn't exist, but the militia that every single American automatically technically belongs to.

 

[hortysir]

Do I know exactly what it says in the Bill of Rights off the top of my head? No.
I actually didn't even know Canada did not have that in their Bill of Rights until yesterday (watching Who Wants To Be A Millionaire) - how's that for a confession!

So, you think it has nothing to do with crime rate? yes or no?

The Right to Bear Arms is the right to be in the militia. Nothing else.

Another yokel that doesn't understand the function of a comma

Sent from my Y538 using Tapatalk

And what the hell does a comma have to do with this? I think you need to go read some of my later posts.

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

Read this too, you might learn something that doesn't appear in commas.

The comna is "and". You claim that the right is only for militia. It is for the militia AND the people

No, a comma is not "and" and no, I have never claimed that the right is only for the militia. Where do you make up this rubbish. Go actually READ what the hell I've written instead of making crap up.

The right is NOT for the militia. The right is there to protect the militia. Go read my previous posts.

Your previous reply to Wry made more sense to me as your point

 

[frigidweirdo]

The Right to Bear Arms is the right to be in the militia. Nothing else.

Another yokel that doesn't understand the function of a comma

Sent from my Y538 using Tapatalk

And what the hell does a comma have to do with this? I think you need to go read some of my later posts.

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

Read this too, you might learn something that doesn't appear in commas.

The comna is "and". You claim that the right is only for militia. It is for the militia AND the people

No, a comma is not "and" and no, I have never claimed that the right is only for the militia. Where do you make up this rubbish. Go actually READ what the hell I've written instead of making crap up.

The right is NOT for the militia. The right is there to protect the militia. Go read my previous posts.

Your previous reply to Wry made more sense to me as your point

The point here was merely telling him that he's dealing with this badly. I've made my points already in this thread, and I don't want to have to keep repeating myself.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The Founding Fathers on the Second Amendment

“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!”

George Mason, co-author of the Second Amendment



“I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” – Speech in the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 14, 1778

“That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.” – Virginia Declaration of Rights, June 12, 1776

Richard Henry Lee, Anti-Federalist



“And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless necessary for the defense of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of grievances; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers or possessions.” – Debates of the Massachusetts Convention of February 6, 1788; Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 1788 (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)

George Washington

Yeah, so what. The COTUS makes no mention of wolves and lambs; nor are we non paranoid Americans concerned of being enslaved. The rest of your posted quotes seem to support a well regulated militia and have nothing to do with the issues I've raised.

Some of the quotes were from the ones who WROTE THE DAMNED THING.............

but a Wry Catcher knows more than the ones who wrote it.....................sucks to be you because they have quotes CLEAR AS A BELL on what their intent was back then WHEN IT WAS WRITTEN..............

Which is why you try to regulate through the back door................because you get bitch slapped through the front door.

"Clear as a bell"? Not at all, and they were written over 200 years ago when doctors still drained the blood from ill patients.

Dies its age make the first amendment any less relevant?

Of course. Do I need to list the myriad differences between the late 18th century and the early 21st?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Another yokel that doesn't understand the function of a comma

Sent from my Y538 using Tapatalk

And what the hell does a comma have to do with this? I think you need to go read some of my later posts.

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

Read this too, you might learn something that doesn't appear in commas.

The comna is "and". You claim that the right is only for militia. It is for the militia AND the people

No, a comma is not "and" and no, I have never claimed that the right is only for the militia. Where do you make up this rubbish. Go actually READ what the hell I've written instead of making crap up.

The right is NOT for the militia. The right is there to protect the militia. Go read my previous posts.

Your previous reply to Wry made more sense to me as your point

The point here was merely telling him that he's dealing with this badly. I've made my points already in this thread, and I don't want to have to keep repeating myself.

What in my argument is incorrect or dishonest or made badly? The first time the 2nd was a right not equated to service in a militia was in Heller. No one has offered any evidence that this is untrue.

The arguments against me have been mostly emotional and disregard the history of gun controls which existed for most of our nation's history. The majority of posts by those opposed to all controls on guns are limited to personal attacks on my intelligence or character.

I'm not the least be intimidated by stupid people obsessed with guns who have no argument other than these two: The 2nd Amendment and fear of tyrannical government.

Both I've taken on with reasoned remarks which have never been proved wrong.

1. There are already laws against the civilian population owning or having in their possession weapons of war unrestricted by law and or regulated.

Thus the Second Amendment is NOT sacrosanct as so many believe.

2. Only an idiot believes the possession of arms readily affordable and available to the current civilian population are sufficient to repeal a military or para military force of our government;

We live in a time when the government is temporary, and the people (at least those allowed to vote) can choose the civilian population who govern us, and control our military and para military agencies.

[THE GREATER THREAT TO OURSELVES AND OUR FAMILIES IS WHEN THE VOTE IS SUPPRESSED BY OVERT OR COVERT MEANS - BETTER TO WORRY ABOUT THE IMPACT ON OUR LIBERTY BY THE REALITY OF CU & McCUTCHEON V. FEC AND THE CURRENT EFFORTS BY SOME STATES TO LIMIT THE RIGHT TO VOTE BASED ON THE CANARD OF VOTER FRAUD]

 

[Iceweasel]

What in my argument is incorrect or dishonest or made badly? The first time the 2nd was a right not equated to service in a militia was in Heller. No one has offered any evidence that this is untrue.

They have many times but NASA can't send it far enough up your ass for you to see it. I asked how they got it wrong since the population has been armed from the beginning and you can't come up with anything.

 

[Wry Catcher]

What in my argument is incorrect or dishonest or made badly? The first time the 2nd was a right not equated to service in a militia was in Heller. No one has offered any evidence that this is untrue.

They have many times but NASA can't send it far enough up your ass for you to see it. I asked how they got it wrong since the population has been armed from the beginning and you can't come up with anything.

THANKS FOR PROVING ONCE AGAIN THAT NO RATIONAL / REASONED ARGUMENT IS EVER POSTED BY THE STUPID PEOPLE!

 

[Iceweasel]

What in my argument is incorrect or dishonest or made badly? The first time the 2nd was a right not equated to service in a militia was in Heller. No one has offered any evidence that this is untrue.

They have many times but NASA can't send it far enough up your ass for you to see it. I asked how they got it wrong since the population has been armed from the beginning and you can't come up with anything.

THANKS FOR PROVING ONCE AGAIN THAT NO RATIONAL / REASONED ARGUMENT IS EVER POSTED BY THE STUPID PEOPLE!

You still have no answer. Everyone has been wrong for 239 years except modern day liberals. Thanks for proving they are insane.

 

[2aguy]

And what the hell does a comma have to do with this? I think you need to go read some of my later posts.

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

Read this too, you might learn something that doesn't appear in commas.

The comna is "and". You claim that the right is only for militia. It is for the militia AND the people

No, a comma is not "and" and no, I have never claimed that the right is only for the militia. Where do you make up this rubbish. Go actually READ what the hell I've written instead of making crap up.

The right is NOT for the militia. The right is there to protect the militia. Go read my previous posts.

Your previous reply to Wry made more sense to me as your point

The point here was merely telling him that he's dealing with this badly. I've made my points already in this thread, and I don't want to have to keep repeating myself.

What in my argument is incorrect or dishonest or made badly? The first time the 2nd was a right not equated to service in a militia was in Heller. No one has offered any evidence that this is untrue.

The arguments against me have been mostly emotional and disregard the history of gun controls which existed for most of our nation's history. The majority of posts by those opposed to all controls on guns are limited to personal attacks on my intelligence or character.

I'm not the least be intimidated by stupid people obsessed with guns who have no argument other than these two: The 2nd Amendment and fear of tyrannical government.

Both I've taken on with reasoned remarks which have never been proved wrong.

1. There are already laws against the civilian population owning or having in their possession weapons of war unrestricted by law and or regulated.

Thus the Second Amendment is NOT sacrosanct as so many believe.

2. Only an idiot believes the possession of arms readily affordable and available to the current civilian population are sufficient to repeal a military or para military force of our government;

We live in a time when the government is temporary, and the people (at least those allowed to vote) can choose the civilian population who govern us, and control our military and para military agencies.

[THE GREATER THREAT TO OURSELVES AND OUR FAMILIES IS WHEN THE VOTE IS SUPPRESSED BY OVERT OR COVERT MEANS - BETTER TO WORRY ABOUT THE IMPACT ON OUR LIBERTY BY THE REALITY OF CU & McCUTCHEON V. FEC AND THE CURRENT EFFORTS BY SOME STATES TO LIMIT THE RIGHT TO VOTE BASED ON THE CANARD OF VOTER FRAUD]

The first time the 2nd was a right not equated to service in a militia was in Heller.

Wrong…..the 2nd Amendment was a Right long before man walked upright……..Heller limits it in ways that are wrong.

1. There are already laws against the civilian population owning or having in their possession weapons of war unrestricted by law and or regulated.

And civilians should have access to any small arms used by the police or military…..we are their masters, they are not our masters, we supply their arms they don't' dictate which arms we can own.

2. Only an idiot believes the possession of arms readily affordable and available to the current civilian population are sufficient to repeal a military or para military force of our government;

Wrong……just ask the jihadis in Afghanistan and Iraq if small arms and improvised explosives can get the worlds greatest military power to leave….

We live in a time when the government is temporary, and the people (at least those allowed to vote) can choose the civilian population who govern us, and control our military and para military agencies.

This was probably uttered by the people who believed the German government would protect them…..just as they entered the gas chambers….with their wives and small children…..

 

[Iceweasel]

...still waiting Wry Catcher....

 

[frigidweirdo]

And what the hell does a comma have to do with this? I think you need to go read some of my later posts.

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

Read this too, you might learn something that doesn't appear in commas.

The comna is "and". You claim that the right is only for militia. It is for the militia AND the people

No, a comma is not "and" and no, I have never claimed that the right is only for the militia. Where do you make up this rubbish. Go actually READ what the hell I've written instead of making crap up.

The right is NOT for the militia. The right is there to protect the militia. Go read my previous posts.

Your previous reply to Wry made more sense to me as your point

The point here was merely telling him that he's dealing with this badly. I've made my points already in this thread, and I don't want to have to keep repeating myself.

What in my argument is incorrect or dishonest or made badly? The first time the 2nd was a right not equated to service in a militia was in Heller. No one has offered any evidence that this is untrue.

The arguments against me have been mostly emotional and disregard the history of gun controls which existed for most of our nation's history. The majority of posts by those opposed to all controls on guns are limited to personal attacks on my intelligence or character.

I'm not the least be intimidated by stupid people obsessed with guns who have no argument other than these two: The 2nd Amendment and fear of tyrannical government.

Both I've taken on with reasoned remarks which have never been proved wrong.

1. There are already laws against the civilian population owning or having in their possession weapons of war unrestricted by law and or regulated.

Thus the Second Amendment is NOT sacrosanct as so many believe.

2. Only an idiot believes the possession of arms readily affordable and available to the current civilian population are sufficient to repeal a military or para military force of our government;

We live in a time when the government is temporary, and the people (at least those allowed to vote) can choose the civilian population who govern us, and control our military and para military agencies.

[THE GREATER THREAT TO OURSELVES AND OUR FAMILIES IS WHEN THE VOTE IS SUPPRESSED BY OVERT OR COVERT MEANS - BETTER TO WORRY ABOUT THE IMPACT ON OUR LIBERTY BY THE REALITY OF CU & McCUTCHEON V. FEC AND THE CURRENT EFFORTS BY SOME STATES TO LIMIT THE RIGHT TO VOTE BASED ON THE CANARD OF VOTER FRAUD]

Heller didn't make the 2A bear arms something other than service in the militia. It pandered to the right on the issue, without actually doing anything much. People who interpret the 2A badly will also be able to interpret Heller badly, because they made it as vague as possible to avoid making the right think they did something bad.

 

[OldLady]

The nature v nurture debate has swung toward the reasonable conclusion that both play a role. We can't change genes, yet, so what can we change to prevent more generations from growing up in inner city war zones? The Democrats that you seem to feel are 'on their side' haven't done much of a job, have they?

For decades the DEMs have used the negro 'block vote' by making promises the DEMs never have any intention of keeping.
Recently the negro voters though they had died and gone to heaven when Obama was elected. The sad irony is Obama has set race relations back forty years.
Of course after the last midterms the negro voters stayed at home. And look what happened across the country?The DEMS were slaughtered.
DEM 'solution'? Find another 'Special Needs' group to block vote for the DEMs. So Obama opens the borders to let as many in as he can. Within these Latinos are budding DEMs who the DEMs hope will vote DEM.. some day.
(Want to witness a Latino go from leaning DEM to a REP overnight?
The Latino by through his hard work starts a business and succeeds. He/she are able to move into the middle class. There they watch the fucking LIBs giving away hard earned tax dollars towards supporting loser programs. Can you all say Solyndra?)
Promise them the fucking moon and when you don't deliver blame the REPs.
Yes the "Nature versus Nurture debate has been ongoing BUT with the advances in science and genotyping the facts have become irrefutable visa vi negro violence and alleles.
Ironic that when the LIBs use science to prove something they claim the REPs are anti-science. When the scientists prove something the LIBs don't want to acknowledge then the scientists are "racists".

I understand this is a political message board, so a lot of folks contributing will view the issues through a Dem/Rep lens. You lost me, no fault of your own. Your concluding statements, though, don't really take the nature v nurture debate into account. Maybe genetic studies have shown more blacks than whites are born with the warrior gene. What's your point? Do you plan to do something with that information or just use it to smear the black race as a whole; add grist to the hate mill? I'm probably on the wrong thread.

Someone here put up a thread: Why do blacks commit more crime than whites'?
That's where I thought I was posting a response to. Someone took down the thread.
Is it "hate" to simply post scientific facts?
IMO the only way the negro race has any viable future globally is to acknowledge scientific facts and then do something positive to help. For example I would offer any negro free medication to relieve the impulse to commit violence. NOT MANDATE IT. I'm NOT suggesting they walk around like fucking zombies. Just something to take off the 'edge'.
I'd open schools with curriculums designed for students with IQ's in the low eighties. Many more would succeed in school and their self esteem would be raised. Just as the SC judge recently advised.
All positive things.
The 'deniers' will scream 'racism'! Ya that's right. There really are differences in the races. Just as there are differences in different animal species.
It's like 'pretending' all four legged animals can run as fast as any other four legged animal which is the fucking LIBs mantra: "PC". "We're all the same. Everyone deserves a trophy. There are no winners or losers". And on and fucking on.

The world, nature, the universe, isn't fair--which is why humans should strive to be. It's truly unfair to treat an entire group--African Americans--like shit for 300 years and then wonder why they're dysfunctional. Jesum Crow. There are factors other than genes at work here. But thank you for explaining.

Only the democrats treat them like crap....and they continue to vote democrat over 95%.

At least I don't hear democrats saying they're born STUPID and VIOLENT and NOT DESERVING OF A STEP UP TO COLLEGE. I don't know how I missed this one--you'll probably never see this reply. For the record.

 

[2aguy]

For decades the DEMs have used the negro 'block vote' by making promises the DEMs never have any intention of keeping.
Recently the negro voters though they had died and gone to heaven when Obama was elected. The sad irony is Obama has set race relations back forty years.
Of course after the last midterms the negro voters stayed at home. And look what happened across the country?The DEMS were slaughtered.
DEM 'solution'? Find another 'Special Needs' group to block vote for the DEMs. So Obama opens the borders to let as many in as he can. Within these Latinos are budding DEMs who the DEMs hope will vote DEM.. some day.
(Want to witness a Latino go from leaning DEM to a REP overnight?
The Latino by through his hard work starts a business and succeeds. He/she are able to move into the middle class. There they watch the fucking LIBs giving away hard earned tax dollars towards supporting loser programs. Can you all say Solyndra?)
Promise them the fucking moon and when you don't deliver blame the REPs.
Yes the "Nature versus Nurture debate has been ongoing BUT with the advances in science and genotyping the facts have become irrefutable visa vi negro violence and alleles.
Ironic that when the LIBs use science to prove something they claim the REPs are anti-science. When the scientists prove something the LIBs don't want to acknowledge then the scientists are "racists".

I understand this is a political message board, so a lot of folks contributing will view the issues through a Dem/Rep lens. You lost me, no fault of your own. Your concluding statements, though, don't really take the nature v nurture debate into account. Maybe genetic studies have shown more blacks than whites are born with the warrior gene. What's your point? Do you plan to do something with that information or just use it to smear the black race as a whole; add grist to the hate mill? I'm probably on the wrong thread.

Someone here put up a thread: Why do blacks commit more crime than whites'?
That's where I thought I was posting a response to. Someone took down the thread.
Is it "hate" to simply post scientific facts?
IMO the only way the negro race has any viable future globally is to acknowledge scientific facts and then do something positive to help. For example I would offer any negro free medication to relieve the impulse to commit violence. NOT MANDATE IT. I'm NOT suggesting they walk around like fucking zombies. Just something to take off the 'edge'.
I'd open schools with curriculums designed for students with IQ's in the low eighties. Many more would succeed in school and their self esteem would be raised. Just as the SC judge recently advised.
All positive things.
The 'deniers' will scream 'racism'! Ya that's right. There really are differences in the races. Just as there are differences in different animal species.
It's like 'pretending' all four legged animals can run as fast as any other four legged animal which is the fucking LIBs mantra: "PC". "We're all the same. Everyone deserves a trophy. There are no winners or losers". And on and fucking on.

The world, nature, the universe, isn't fair--which is why humans should strive to be. It's truly unfair to treat an entire group--African Americans--like shit for 300 years and then wonder why they're dysfunctional. Jesum Crow. There are factors other than genes at work here. But thank you for explaining.

Only the democrats treat them like crap....and they continue to vote democrat over 95%.

At least I don't hear democrats saying they're born STUPID and VIOLENT and NOT DESERVING OF A STEP UP TO COLLEGE. I don't know how I missed this one--you'll probably never see this reply. For the record.

I never say they are born stupid and violent and not deserving of college...not deserving of having others pay for it...but that goes for everyone....

 

[Centinel]

Regardless of the second amendment, can anyone point to any of congress' enumerated powers that would allow it to enact gun control legislation?

 

[hortysir]

Regardless of the second amendment, can anyone point to any of congress' enumerated powers that would allow it to enact gun control legislation?

Taxes and duties come to mind. They could make guns cost-prohibitive