Random Political comments...

The dems want to abolish the 2nd A. Fact.

12 at a time got shot in driveby's? You watch too mamy gangsta movies, lol.

Manufacturers can't be sucessfully sued as long as we have a birth-right to bear arms.

Did you see what's happened to Dicks? Huge revenue loss. People have and will just buy their guns elsewhere.

 

You assume that people will just allow the Govt to murder their own citizens en-mass for exercising a birthright.
What are they going to do - Move bomb 100 million Americans?
You think our military soldiers will wilfully agree to murder their fellow Americans because they decline to forfeit their firearms?
You p___y.. give up yours, right now. Either you're for the 2ND A, or you're not. If not, turn in your guns.
(I'm sure you're also against the First A as well.).

 

Now see Bliss, this kind of name calling attack is just not necessary (and before you say it, yes TDK has given as good as he has got, still does not make it right). This is a tough issue with strong differences of opinion. You do realize that a civil war was fought and hundreds of thousands of lives were lost over what some considered a birthright that was being taken away from them right? There are numerous historical precedents, from Shay's rebellion, John Brown's assualt, to COINTELPRO, ect. where government and/or military personnel murdered their fellow Americans due to extreme differences. I don't believe all dems want to get rid of the 2nd amendment, http://www.gunsandammo.com/second-amendment/8-surprisingly-pro-gun-democrats/, https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/03/repeal-second-amendment-almost-half-democrats-say-yes/, as a gun owner myself I would fight against removal of the 2nd amendment, that being said, I cannot ignore the distinct differences in the gun related fatalities in other countries that have stricter gun control laws/bans.

Personally I think Canada has a pretty good, but not perfect system, all gun owners are required to be older than 18 years of age, obtain a license that includes a background check and complete a public safety course. All guns fall under three categories: unrestricted, restricted and prohibited. Ordinary rifles and shotguns are unrestricted; handguns, semiautomatic rifles and shotguns, as well as sawed-off rifles and shotguns are restricted; and all automatic weapons are prohibited.

 

No one has a birth right to own a firearm. Just because it's enshrined in the Constitution doesn't mean it's infallible.

If the Founding Fathers were alive today, best believe they would make radical changes to the 2nd Amendment.
In the 18th century, a few 'patriots' with muskets could overthrow the federal government.

Not so true in 2018..

 

What birthright are you referring to before l go further?

 

The right to own slaves, thats why the civil war was fought.

 

Yes. It transcends any man-made law. The moment you are born, you are granted the 2nd amendment Right.
Look it up

Natural rights are those that are not dependent on the laws or customs of any particular culture or government, and so are universal and inalienable (they cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws). ... The concept of natural law is related to the concept of natural rights.

If the Founding Fathers were alive today, they'd be horrified at the hostaged communities denied their basic human birth Right to defend themselves.

 

I thought that was what you meant but wanted to be sure. Them thinking that and it being a Constitutional Right are polar beliefs. Only a certain segment believed it was their right (not even their birthright) to own them.
If you could show me in the Constitution where they had the inalienable and unalienable Right, I'd be interested.

 

Please elaborate on your thoughts above, are you saying that the 2nd amendment/right to bear arms is conferred at birth in this country? Because federal law prohibits handgun ownership by any person under the age 18, with a handful of exceptions and loopholes. If you are saying that people have the natural right to be secure in their body and their possessions, well there is well established legal precedents to support that as a natural right. However the devil is in the details as to exactly how a person can protect themselves.

 

Simply not true Bliss. While the word Slave or Slavery is never mentioned explicitly in the Constitution, the founding fathers, clearly sanctioned slavery, using terms like those "bound to Service" per below. http://ashbrook.org/publications/respub-v6n1-boyd/

The first indication of slavery in the Constitution appears in Article I, Section 2. This is the three-fifths clause that explains the apportionment of representation and taxation. It reads:

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all other Persons.
Thus this clause explains that the number of persons in each state, for the purpose of representation and taxation, is to be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons three fifths "of all other Persons" The phrase " free Persons" is followed by an explanation that in addition to free citizens, all people bound to service for a term of years, such as an indentured servant, are also included in the total number for representation. Indians, which are not taxed, are excluded from the population to be represented.

"Yet the original U.S. Constitution was widely thought to have sanctioned this crime. Even today, many still believe that, until the ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment prohibiting involuntary servitude, slavery previously had been constitutional, and for this reason, the original Constitution was deeply flawed. https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/1238/

"Morality did nag at the consciences of some white Americans—the Enlightenment philosophies of natural rights and growing religious convictions were a nuisance for those profiting from the institution of slavery. The contradiction couldn’t be denied: philosophies that recognized the rights of the individual were juxtaposed against the fact that America had become a place where an entire subset of people were commoditized and dehumanized.

The answer was pretty simple: clarify who gets to be a person and who doesn’t. Fabricating a subservient order for those with darker skin allowed our founding generation (and generations after) to define "all men" and "the people" as "white men." As a result, they guaranteed white men the rights and liberties promised by the Constitution while preserving a thriving economy based on racial oppression." https://www.montpelier.org/learn/slavery-constitution-lasting-legacy

 

I haven't insulted anyone in years friend and even if I did she's doing it because like usual she doesn't have a real argument. If she thinks soldiers won't kill American citizens then step outside your white blindness and talk to people of color who are in communities that are over policed where a citizen can be driving away and shot in the back of the head. Can be on a cell phone and shot to death. The state sanctioned violence against poc illustrates that if given the order our "protectors" will slaughter citizens even children ie Tamir Rice and not feel anything about it.
So if you're relying on compassion think again. It happens all over the world what on earth makes us so special?

 

Thanks for the link. As it states, its implied, speculation etc. I'd like to look further into it because the Constitution was absolutely concise and definitive. So it was not 'open to interpretation. Thus, we are still at the point that the 2nd A is a birthright, as deemed in black and white.

 

Oh please, You have indeed recently insulted me. Calling me a racist, co-signing that putz flame-ass calling me a nazi whore, blah, blah fucking blah.

Not once did YOU @Loki say shit to them, so miss me with your defense of TDK.

That's why l will alway heart @andreboba and @ColiBreh1 ... A1 men.

 

I know how repeatedly villified BW are here by a few loud mouths, so l refuse to put this incident in the Starbucks thread...

What is your opinion on what happened to the Golf ladies last week. It makes me utterly sick!

Here is the link.
https://kywnews.radio.com/articles/ap-news/golf-club-apologizes-calling-cops-black-women-members

I've also seen some cell phone footage of it and l just wanna punch that punk son in the face! How dare they.

@Loki ..l know you must be aware of this, especially since one is a lawyer.
No way this happens to anyone else.

 

Not true again Bliss, I have called for civility from all here.

 

That story pissed me off big time. I would sue the shirts off of their backs for treating those 5 women in such a terrible manner. The women are being very calm and professional about it. What really pissed me off was that according to everyone involved the women played the 9 holes in less than 2 hours which is a very good pace of play that no reasonable golfer should have a problem with. Thus it was CLEARLY about them being women and Black, period.

 

At least l kept it nice and didn't spell it out.

Black women for sure. I highly doubt if they were a bunch of. 'cute' white female golfers they would have been treated with such contempt.

Kudos to the wife of the other co-owner for personally calling to appologize and express her aghast- she sounded sincere.

This really bothers me because l know these types (the son and father type) l see them here in PA - they're intolerant, bigots racists obnoxious, entitled, think they're-better-than-you kind of personalities.

So shameful that these women had to endure them...especially because such outrageous treatment affects one's psyche for a long time. I also hope they sue.

 

Well the Bill of rights was not ratified until 1791, so it was not part of the original Constitution. The original point I was making was that slavery was in fact considered a birthright, as mentioned in the Constitution, before the 13th amendment. Hell as recently as 2016 whether slavery was still legal or not in Wisconsin was being debated in the state legislature, as technically the 13th amendment only freed the slaves in the confederate states.

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin...f-not-practiced-slavery-still-allowable-wisc/

 

* and not to bring Trump into it, but I think he'd be equally disgusted..and.wish if he heard of this that he call the women and personally invite them to play at his course.

 

I recall that 'slavery was still legal' (in name) up until a few years ago..but didn't know it was Wisconsin. So slavery existed in Wisconsin? Let me catch up .
...
Ok so reading the politifact, 'slavery as punishment' applied to anyone committing a crime.. as in, you serve it doing slave labor. I don't see it specifying 'only slaves committing crimes ...contibue to be slaves as punishment'
It's not even clear that it's slave OWNERSHIP, right? .It states 'slave labor as punishment for conviction of a crime...no?