The antithesis of liberty and freedom and a cure

[BWK]

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

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.

Damn son, you just can't see the forest for the trees can you? Henry was in the crosshairs of making hard decisions about limiting the militias power. And what was his concern? Slaves of course. So, the second was ratified based on that concern. Limiting their power against slaves would have been too risky for the militia.

All this talk about mistrust of the centralized government was a bunch of bs. It was a front to the real concern, which were the slaves.

 

[BWK]

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?))

Dude, take a chill pill. You were the one who originally went off topic. Do I need to show you? Stop posting off topic if you can't deal with it.

 

[BWK]

I already have. 400 voter suppression bills is all the Bureaucracy one needs to point out. And by the way, those bills exist. Meaning, they are facts. Next?

 

[BackAgain]

Damn son, you just can't see the forest for the trees can you? Henry was in the crosshairs of making hard decisions about limiting the militias power. And what was his concern? Slaves of course. So, the second was ratified based on that concern. Limiting their power against slaves would have been too risky for the militia.

All this talk about mistrust of the centralized government was a bunch of bs. It was a front to the real concern, which were the slaves.

OFF TOPIC. AND BULLSHIT.

Damn stupid, you don’t know how to start your own thread. You poor little stupid motherfucker.

 

[BackAgain]

I already have. 400 voter suppression bills is all the Bureaucracy one needs to point out. And by the way, those bills exist. Meaning, they are facts. Next?

No. No voter suppression bills. Not one. As in None. Bills exist. Your spin on what they do is the bullshit that isn’t a fact.

 

[lantern2814]

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.

Hey moron, I don’t need prove a negative. YOU have to prove your drivel. Which you can’t. Noting your total dodge of the fact that Delaware has far more restrictions on voting than Georgia does. You can’t change THAT truth.

 

[BackAgain]

Dude, take a chill pill. You were the one who originally went off topic. Do I need to show you? Stop posting off topic if you can't deal with it.

OFF TOPIC. AND More bullshit.

 

[MisterBeale]

I already have. 400 voter suppression bills is all the Bureaucracy one needs to point out. And by the way, those bills exist. Meaning, they are facts. Next?

I've looked into it.

There are no "voter suppression," laws being introduced. Just because establishment cabal media characterize them as such, does not make it that way. Both parties, and all voters, have to abide by the same rules, thus, by definition, they aren't "voter suppression," laws.

All laws are equal.

You are using disingenuous language to characterize reality.

Nice try though.

 

[BackAgain]

Restricting mail-in ballots cuts down on the ability of fraudsters to cheat. Not a rough thing to grasp.

Old Cock downvoted my post because, apparently, he thinks that it is just as easy to cheat with rigid voter ID requirements, in person.

 

[MisterBeale]

Old Cock downvoted my post because, apparently, he thinks that it is just as easy to cheat with rigid voter ID requirements, in person.

What you stated are facts.

I followed this story in Consortium News, which is a VERY lefty site, and they pretty much shut up about it, when Biden was elected, but they uncovered the corruption in the DNC when Sanders and his supporters, and other progressives politicians were rigged out of the process.

A pol. named Tim Canova, a professor & Bernie supporter from a local college ran in a primary against the corrupt DNC chair woman, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the one that had to step down in disgrace? There is a whole bunch of scandle associated with her, if you dig. That whole area of Florida stinks with Deep State stank.

Anywho, he exposed the election supervisor, Brenda Snipes, and the corrupt establishment didn't even prosecute the law. . . it was like a Hillary Clinton redux.