The antithesis of liberty and freedom and a cure

[BackAgain]

But an impossible thing for you to explain, when you have nothing to reference. You lose again.

Actually, as you would realize if you had a functioning brain, I gave the explanation. And the references you seek are in the records of the legislatures which have passed such laws. I invite you to do your own research. When you do (lol. As if you ever would … ) you would find zero evidence to support your own baseless crap.

 

[BackAgain]

Although Bwk may wish to continue to derail the actual subject matter, I think we should return to the point of the OP.

That includes a discussion not of the 2d Amendment as such as matters like CRT (Crap Racist Theory) which leftist stooges ARE seeking to pollute our educational system with.

 

[BWK]

By the way, the evidence that you are wrong can be found by reviewing the more or less contemporaneous records from the Constitutional Convention. The Framers were very clear about history and knew what they were doing. Control of slaves had nothing to do with a damn thing concerning the 2nd Amendment.

The only reason an abject asshole racist imbecile like you buys the malarkey that say that the reason for the 2d Amendment ever had anything to do with the control of slaves is because you’re an asshole imbecile who wants to believe such baseless crap.

I am not responsible for your willing ignorance. And I am certainly not responsible for the education you failed to get. Did you even go to school?

Right, when in doubt, and you are backed into a corner, the other guy is a racist imbecile, when racism has nothing to do with the facts of this discussion. Your Ad hominem approach is for losers, because once again, where is your documented argument? Lol! No fucking where. Bottom line, you pulled some bs "contemporaneous records" that you failed to pull out, lol, and that's your intelligent argument. Your claimed documentation that shows no documentation. Dude, you do understand that you are continuing down this track of making a fool of yourself right?

You are desperate to be relevant, but you are boxed in with your own out of the sky arguments that tell us nothing. And yet, my documentation speaks truth against all your bs and name calling.

You have provided us with no documentation, name calling, and words like "malarkey." Give it a rest. After all, your buddies on here are watching you make a fool of yourself over an argument you don't have. And how do I know that. Because your buddies can't help you.

You made a thread about a guy who is a bs artist, who did nothing but contradict, and now you continue other debates about topics you can't win. rants, name calling, and undocumented claims are for losers. but if you want to keep on making a fool of yourself, please continue.

 

[BackAgain]

Right, when in doubt, and you are backed into a corner, the other guy is a racist imbecile, when racism has nothing to do with the facts of this discussion. Your Ad hominem approach is for losers, because once again, where is your documented argument? Lol! No fucking where. Bottom line, you pulled some bs "contemporaneous records" that you failed to pull out, lol, and that's your intelligent argument. Your claimed documentation that shows no documentation. Dude, you do understand that you are continuing down this track of making a fool of yourself right?

You are desperate to be relevant, but you are boxed in with your own out of the sky arguments that tell us nothing. And yet, my documentation speaks truth against all your bs and name calling.

You have provided us with no documentation, name calling, and words like "malarkey." Give it a rest. After all, your buddies on here are watching you make a fool of yourself over an argument you don't have. And how do I know that. Because your buddies can't help you.

You made a thread about a guy who is a bs artist, who did nothing but contradict, and now you continue other debates about topics you can't win. rants, name calling, and undocumented claims are for losers. but if you want to keep on making a fool of yourself, please continue.

A. I haven’t been backed into any corners.
B. You ARE a racist imbecile and that remains independent of any discussion, debate or any other outside factor.
C. I stopped reading your post at that point because your pathetic and obvious desire to steer the conversation away from the thread topic makes your lengthy post unworthy or much more attention.
D. You remain an asshole, as alway; but if you care to even attempt to post something meaningful, properly-sourced and on topic, I will continue in my gracious efforts to attempt to educate you despite your tragic mental deficiencies.

 

[BWK]

Actually, as you would realize if you had a functioning brain, I gave the explanation. And the references you seek are in the records of the legislatures which have passed such laws. I invite you to do your own research. When you do (lol. As if you ever would … ) you would find zero evidence to support your own baseless crap.

OMG, you'll never get it will you?
By contrast, James Madison, the author of the Second Amendment, wrote his amendment with his eye firmly fixed on practical politics. He introduced the amendment during Virginia’s debate over the ratification of the Constitution because Virginia Governor Patrick Henry saw danger lurking in Article 1, Section 8, of the Constitution, which gives Congress the power to provide for “organizing, arming, and disciplining” militias.

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

The militia issue was important enough for Henry to see it as grounds for opposing ratification of the Constitution. The positive power Congress had over militias, Henry reasoned, could easily be turned into restrictive power. “By this sir, you see that their control over our best defence is unlimited,” Henry warned his fellow Virginians.

It took Madison two drafts to get the Second Amendment into the single sentence it is today. His careful wording was deliberate. In drawing a connection between militias and the right to bear arms rather than simply defending the right to bear arms, Madison, a slave holder himself, was speaking to his state’s ruling powers. Only the white men in the Virginia militia had the right to bear arms. Free African-Americans could join the militia, but they were limited to being drummers or buglers.

If you don't see the irony, you're either a liar or an idiot.

 

[BWK]

A. I haven’t been backed into any corners.
B. You ARE a racist imbecile and that remains independent of any discussion, debate or any other outside factor.
C. I stopped reading your post at that point because your pathetic and obvious desire to steer the conversation away from the thread topic makes your lengthy post unworthy or much more attention.
D. You remain an asshole, as alway; but if you care to even attempt to post something meaningful, properly-sourced and on topic, I will continue in my gracious efforts to attempt to educate you despite your tragic mental deficiencies

Wow, now you want to talk about some collective gobbly goo.

Oh yea, you decided to go off topic. I was merely citing examples of the authors contradictions.

And my sources have meaning, especially up against yours that come straight out of your ass. You presented no sources.

 

[BWK]

Although Bwk may wish to continue to derail the actual subject matter, I think we should return to the point of the OP.

That includes a discussion not of the 2d Amendment as such as matters like CRT (Crap Racist Theory) which leftist stooges ARE seeking to pollute our educational system with.

I didn't derail it, you did;
There aren’t any voter suppression bills. You rely on the dishonest media “reporting” waaaay too much. Bills and efforts to prevent voter fraud and bills which seek to make electoral security achievable aren’t about suppression of any votes. Well, except for those who aren’t entitled to vote (like aliens, those who have already voted and dead people.)

Granted the overall effect might impede the extra Democrat voter turnout.

 

[Colin norris]

This was a great read, thank you.

It should not offend classical liberals, but I am sure it will make leftists burst a vein or two. Your posting this OP, might cause some strokes.

It's almost as if that was trumps instructions. It's a recipe for defeat at least.

 

[BackAgain]

OMG, you'll never get it will you?
By contrast, James Madison, the author of the Second Amendment, wrote his amendment with his eye firmly fixed on practical politics. He introduced the amendment during Virginia’s debate over the ratification of the Constitution because Virginia Governor Patrick Henry saw danger lurking in Article 1, Section 8, of the Constitution, which gives Congress the power to provide for “organizing, arming, and disciplining” militias.

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

The militia issue was important enough for Henry to see it as grounds for opposing ratification of the Constitution. The positive power Congress had over militias, Henry reasoned, could easily be turned into restrictive power. “By this sir, you see that their control over our best defence is unlimited,” Henry warned his fellow Virginians.

It took Madison two drafts to get the Second Amendment into the single sentence it is today. His careful wording was deliberate. In drawing a connection between militias and the right to bear arms rather than simply defending the right to bear arms, Madison, a slave holder himself, was speaking to his state’s ruling powers. Only the white men in the Virginia militia had the right to bear arms. Free African-Americans could join the militia, but they were limited to being drummers or buglers.

If you don't see the irony, you're either a liar or an idiot.

You remain the liar and idiot.

Again, the impetus for the Second Amendment was the inherent distrust of centralized power which informed literate and thinking people in those days that the creation of a national government might lead to a repetition of an overbearing government.

Since you remain hell-bent on trying to derail this thread, maybe I’ll just suggest you try making this a topic of its own thread.

 

[BackAgain]

I didn't derail it, you did;
There aren’t any voter suppression bills. You rely on the dishonest media “reporting” waaaay too much. Bills and efforts to prevent voter fraud and bills which seek to make electoral security achievable aren’t about suppression of any votes. Well, except for those who aren’t entitled to vote (like aliens, those who have already voted and dead people.)

Granted the overall effect might impede the extra Democrat voter turnout.

No no. You are the one attempting to derail it. And it’s quite obvious and plodding of you. Try to stay focused.
Here’s another helpful hint. The thread topic here is not the 2d Amendment. See? Not that difficult even for a tool like you.

 

[BackAgain]

I didn't derail it, you did;
There aren’t any voter suppression bills. You rely on the dishonest media “reporting” waaaay too much. Bills and efforts to prevent voter fraud and bills which seek to make electoral security achievable aren’t about suppression of any votes. Well, except for those who aren’t entitled to vote (like aliens, those who have already voted and dead people.)

Granted the overall effect might impede the extra Democrat voter turnout.

See? If we try to limit illegal votes, I agree that might deter Democrat vote totals. Apparently you also agree.

 

[BackAgain]

Oh yea, you decided to go off topic. I was merely citing examples of the authors contradictions.

And my sources have meaning, especially up against yours that come straight out of your ass. You presented no sources.

Your source is a screed about one argument to rally support for the Constituion against one silly bit of counter argument.

The reality is that the Framers disliked British practices including such inter-connected things as the quartering of troops and standing armies. They had a mistrust of too much centralized governmental power. The provisions made to insure that the national government couldn’t make laws to usurp the authority of the st

Oh yea, you decided to go off topic. I was merely citing examples of the authors contradictions.

And my sources have meaning, especially up against yours that come straight out of your ass. You presented no sources.

Your “sourcel conflates one argument made by a proponent of the ratification in response to an argument opposed to ratification with the actual reason for the Second amendment.

In reality, if you were studious and honest enough to look at more than just one or two “sources” that make such errors, would inform you that the actual reason of the Framers for the Second amendment had more to do with a mistrust of ventral government authority. It emanated from a knowledge of history — including (but not limited to) what the British had done to the colonies. The conceptual basis for the 2d Amendment included overlapping concerns involving (among other things) opposition to standing armies and such things as the quartering of troops in civilian homes.

Now, again, since you are determined to derail this thread, I think it’s appropriate to just ignore your off topic posting habits. Start this conversation in another stand alone thread, and you might earn some responses.

 

[MisterBeale]

His article is so contradictory of the bs he is selling. "Bureaucracy?" "Despotism?" Those are some good one's right there. Let's see now, 400 voter suppression bills? That wouldn't have anything to do with a state bureaucracy to steal elections and keep minorities from voting would it? And "Despotism?" Are you kidding me? Rachel Maddow Show on MSNBC | Watch Rachel Maddow Live I'll bet Ruby Freeman could tell us a thing or two about Despotism.

Bottom line, the author of that article is straight full of shit.

There is NOTHING in that article about that.

You are constructing STRAWMEN, because his observations ARE CORRECT. . .

I predicted you would be here. . .

"I am sure it will make leftists burst a vein or two."

 

[lantern2814]

Wrong! How does restricting mail-in voting and voter roll purging for bogus reasons have anything to do with preventing voter fraud? How does closing polls early, prevent voter fraud? How does closing 1200 polling places in minority areas altogether prevent voter fraud?

You have not prevented voter fraud from dead people because they are not voting. Your arguments are all lies. There is no dishonest media reporting too much. The bills being carried out by the Right restrict minorities at every turn. That's voter suppression.

Forms of Voter Suppression — The Voting Rights Alliance Buddy, you are a pos liar, and I proved it.

You use Stacey Abrams as your source? Immediate laughter and flushing that shit. Voter suppression? Hardly. Most of these laws make it easier for people to vote. Now explain why Delaware (Xiden’s home) has more restrictive voting laws than Georgia does.

 

[BackAgain]

Right, the Left is trying to change America? Rachel Maddow Show on MSNBC | Watch Rachel Maddow Live Dude, are you on drugs?

Yes, you ignorant idiot. Obumbler explicitly stated he sought to “fundamentally change” America, in fact.

I don’t even click the link of anything associated with that creepy Maddow feller.

And, not for nothin’, but you urgently need a new line. That incredibly stale “are you on drugs” line is the weakest tool in your pathetic arsenal of attempted rhetoric. Seriously. It’s even bad by your standards. And you have no standards.

 

[BWK]

You remain the liar and idiot.

Again, the impetus for the Second Amendment was the inherent distrust of centralized power which informed literate and thinking people in those days that the creation of a national government might lead to a repetition of an overbearing government.

Since you remain hell-bent on trying to derail this thread, maybe I’ll just suggest you try making this a topic of its own thread.

The written words speak for themselves, and their motives were undeniable. The fact that your magical thinking interprets it differently, doesn't change what was written and why it was written that way. It's explained thoroughly, and unambiguously. End of story.

So, we're back to going off topic from your own thread? Lol!

 

[BWK]

You use Stacey Abrams as your source? Immediate laughter and flushing that shit. Voter suppression? Hardly. Most of these laws make it easier for people to vote. Now explain why Delaware (Xiden’s home) has more restrictive voting laws than Georgia does.

Where's your source that it isn't voter suppression? Answer, you don't have one. The 400 voter suppression bills are meant for voter suppression and cheating. And there is nothing intelligent you can produce to change that truth.

 

[BWK]

There is NOTHING in that article about that.

You are constructing STRAWMEN, because his observations ARE CORRECT. . .

I predicted you would be here. . .

"I am sure it will make leftists burst a vein or two."

The cultist party are on speed dial when it comes to Despotism and Bureaucracy.

 

[BackAgain]

The written words speak for themselves, and their motives were undeniable. The fact that your magical thinking interprets it differently, doesn't change what was written and why it was written that way. It's explained thoroughly, and unambiguously. End of story.

So, we're back to going off topic from your own thread? Lol!

Words do speak for themselves. Therefore, your bogus spin on them remain exactly and precisely valueless.

Now, if you’d be so kind, try to be polite and begin to discuss the actual topic. ((Speaking of which: How is your thread starter on your bullshit theory that “the 2d Amendment was to control slaves” coming along, you dopey fucktard?))

 

[MisterBeale]

The cultist party are on speed dial when it comes to Despotism and Bureaucracy.