Too many sidelines about guns on FXU, This thread is about all and everything pro, con, good, bad about The 2nd Amendment as well as Gun Talk about guns, shows, ammo, ranges, the works.

Ill have to state clearly 2 items

1. Threats of violence against any person are stupid and irresponsible and will bring you into contact with the law to see what your up to as well as possible arrest and trial. Readers and Posters here are the judges of what is a true violent threat and of course free to contact law enforcement as they wish

2. Any illegal child or other illegal porn Cary please instantly remove it and notify law enforcement and I know Cary will do that when he sees it. Porn freaks are not interested in political discussions , facts or anything other then their own sicko satisfaction of seeing what they enjoy ambushing others who do not want to see it at all!

The rest all comes in full living FXU color of Your 1st amendment right to free speach

My view of the 2nd Amendment of the Bill Of Rights of The US Constitution is short and sweet for now, I will elaborate later upon it

"The 2nd Amendment provides that the body of the people have a individual right to bear arms for the defense of their person, their family, their home, their settlement, village, town, city, state or entire nation.
The right to bear arms is subject to regulations
Any regulations must not infringe upon the individual right of the people to bear arms" ---- Dear Old Dixie of The Commonwealth Of Virginia

PROS

Americans have a right to protect themselves, it is in the Constitution. When seconds count, the cops are only a few minutes away.

The Second Amendment is not about hunting and target shooting, it is about self defense.

Most 2A guys don't trust the government. With their track record, they shouldn't.

Just because liberals can't imagine themselves defending themselves is no reason to think many Americans are perfectly capable of defending themselves.


CONS

Nuclear arms are banned from private ownership as are fully automatic weapons (heavily restricted, might as well be banned) Using this as established law, it should be clear that caliber and capacity are open to debate and varied regulations state to state.

Do you know that fat weird zit-faced 18 year old virgin at your school? The one who takes meds for ADD or autism or whatever and plays video games all fucking day? I love America and guns but I don't think this losers first gun should be a high capacity semi-automatic rifle. Just me.

Some pros and cons Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> PROS
>
> Americans have a right to protect themselves, it
> is in the Constitution. When seconds count, the
> cops are only a few minutes away.
>
> The Second Amendment is not about hunting and
> target shooting, it is about self defense.
>
> Most 2A guys don't trust the government. With
> their track record, they shouldn't.
>
> Just because liberals can't imagine themselves
> defending themselves is no reason to think many
> Americans are perfectly capable of defending
> themselves.
>
>
> CONS
>
> Nuclear arms are banned from private ownership as
> are fully automatic weapons (heavily restricted,
> might as well be banned) Using this as established
> law, it should be clear that caliber and capacity
> are open to debate and varied regulations state to
> state.
>
> Do you know that fat weird zit-faced 18 year old
> virgin at your school? The one who takes meds for
> ADD or autism or whatever and plays video games
> all fucking day? I love America and guns but I
> don't think this losers first gun should be a high
> capacity semi-automatic rifle. Just me.

30 round magazines for AR-15's and AK-47's are standard capacity and not
"high capacity".

I grew up around guns. I shot my first gun before I was 5. I got my first gun before I was 10. Same was true of the kids I grew up with. Guns were always around. People did not talk about them. People didn't feel the need to show them off. People didn't carry them around unless they intended to use them...which meant hunting season. Unless they were in law enforcement or accompanying the company payroll nobody would think of taking their guns onto someone else's property. Do something even remotely irresponsible with a gun and you'd get your ass kicked. Never worried about being around them then.

Many gun owners today are a different breed. Their guns are not simply potentially dangerous tools. They are extensions of their personality or their politics. I have seen more irresponsible behavior by adults at a firing range than I ever saw when we were kids shooting at cans.

For Hillary, Tell us about 5 rounds being too many to need to kill a deer

You do know what you posted was true in a different day and age, not today as the population has increased by almost 100 million, more criminals and your old days did not include illegals and Democrats attempting to disarm those you mentioned as their goal, their "assault firearms ban" is only a shoe in the door to total confiscation

Simply Put You Cant Ever Trust your Rights To A Democrat EVER AGAIN! Have you ever understood what the LEFT in America means!

Blow my statement off as a Fox news wack job, You need to see what Hillary has been saying lately, I come across as reasonably to what she's said

You need to understand the LEFT is driving the wedge into America as hard as they can with the fury of hammers to hell to divide the American people.

We are in a different day and age and who knows when reason will return .Giving in to the left is not an answer, its the surrender of the nation to their wishes.

Go to off topic here and read "Gerrys" posts as well as take a peek at the Washington Post comments sections on issues and you'll see the Left at work

It will get much worse before it ever gets better Im afraid and with the latest Dirty Tricks in the senate lately its getting worse by the day

God Bless America At Least out in the real world away from political opinions, news media and social media, were still all sane out there, maybe things will settle out, I hope so

Are allowed at children's dressup in costume Halloween Parties at a FCPS or anywhere there's a sign

Hate Has No Home Here ?

Pros and Cons, how incredibly boring.

Look, you got a gun, I'm coming after your balls.

What Kind Of Toy Plastic Guns Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Are allowed at children's dressup in costume
> Halloween Parties at a FCPS or anywhere there's a
> sign
>
> Hate Has No Home Here ?


Always a hit.

,
Attachments:

Stay away from them if you value your life.

Some pros and cons Wrote:
> -------------------------------------------------------
banned from private ownership as
> are fully automatic weapons (heavily restricted, might as well be banned)
> Using this as established> law, it should be clear that

By "banned" you mean that they are not sold to felons,
and that anyone else simply needs to pay a $200 one-time fee.

The sense in which they are "banned" is only that newly manufactured
machine guns are prohibited, which has driven the cost of the old
guns way up: a $600 gun costs about $16,000.

But if you are a criminal gang-banger drug dealer or whatever,
then you are allowed to have all the new machine guns you want.

Brilliant!

Btw, mo legally possessed machine gun (aka "automatic weapon") has ever
been used in the commission of any crime since Al Capone.
Check FBI/DOJ if you don't believe that. (The only thing you'll find
that close is a couple cases over the last 50 years where OPS committed crimes.
Whether it was legal for those COPS to have those guns is a debatable
technicality.)

The main reason for private citizens owning machine guns is for
personal protection during riots/looting, and also to be able
to more easily overthrow the government. Which is the main
thing that 2A was envisioned for, in case you missed that point.

How do you know you might need to overthrow the Government?
Well, when they come to take away your guns, that's a big hint...

I love guns!
Attachments:

ratdatdat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> How do you know you might need to overthrow the
> Government? Well, when they come to take away your
> guns, that's a big hint...

If you think small arms are going to be enough to overthrow the government, you are too fucking stupid to be posting here or anywhere else. Get a fucking life, loser.

Since you asked Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
> People didn't feel the need to show them
> off. People didn't carry them around unless they
> intended to use them...
>
> nobody would
> think of taking their guns onto someone else's
> property. Do something even remotely
> irresponsible with a gun and you'd get your ass
> kicked.
>
>
> Many gun owners today are a different breed.
> Their guns are not simply potentially dangerous
> tools. They are extensions of their personality
> or their politics. I have seen more irresponsible
> behavior by adults at a firing range than I ever
> saw when we were kids shooting at cans.



It is precisely that kind of mush-for-brains gun owners that give us legitimate and responsible owners of firearms a bad name. That is just the kind of gun owner that the Left uses to stereotype all Second Amendment advocates. The Left throws us responsible owners of firearms into that pile of these WOOHOO gun owners.

You might have talked about firearms here or there, but it was not a topic of conversation all day, every day.


If you took your firearms onto someone else's property, you got his permission, FIRST. You knew better than to be carrying a firearm onto someone else's property without his say-so because you learned that a firearm was not a toy, not an extension of your machismo but had purposes and was to be used only for those legitimate purposes. Further, you learned that it was dangerous if in the wrong hands or if misused, so you learned how to be safe with and around a firearm.

As this poster that I have quoted accurately states, if you did something even slightly less than responsible with a firearm, on a good day (for you, that is), you got your ass chewed out thoroughly by your peers and reminded that you knew better than to act like an ass with or around a firearm. On a bad day (for you, at least), you did get several feet literally put squarely into your rear end. This, of course, does not take into account that at times, the firearm will exact its own penalty from the irresponsible user. When that happens, on a good day, said irresponsible user simply gets a small calibre projectile through or into a limb. On a bad day, said irresponsible user is being pronounced dead at the scene.


What is sad is that even some of these licenced dealers are contributing to the irresponsible conduct. A few years back, I went to a licensed dealer of firearms to purchase a shotgun. The salesman showed me various models. We settled on one that was the last model of that kind that he had in stock. I asked for, and received, two boxes of target shot and a carrying case. He started to ring up my purchases. I asked for the box. He made a face, but got it. I looked in the box, then asked for the instruction book. He said to me that he thought that I had already known how to use the firearm. I told him that I did know how to use a shotgun, but never had owned one of these models, had not purchased a firearm in some time, thus changes might have been made. I added that every time I purchased anything new, I always read the instruction book before I tried to use it. He shook his head, mumbled something, but, he did fetch the instruction book.

If I were selling firearms, I would insist that the purchaser take the original box and instruction book. Further, I would have it on record (surveillance video, or something similar, as well as have him sign a book) that I gave him the instruction book and told him to read it before he used the thing. I would even post a big sign on the front door that said that the premises are under surveillance and that all purchasers will be required to sign a book confirming their purchase and that they were given an instruction sheet and told to read it. Anyone who did not like that did not have to buy a firearm from me.

Victim Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pros and Cons, how incredibly boring.
>
> Look, you got a gun, I'm coming after your balls.


What if it's not a cap and ball pistol?

FULL AUTO PRICES SKYROCKETED

After Bush 41 signed into law a cap on the number of full auto class III firearms in the USA. The number of registered firearms on the date that law went into effect was around half a million nationwide with Virginia having the most around 177,000.

No other class III firearms can be added to the national registry no matter when they were made, they were either registered by the date the law went into effect or not. If non registered class III firearms are acquired by law enforcement or the military they can do what they want with them

After full auto machine guns were regulated by the National Firearms Act of 1934, there has only been a few cases where any legally federally registered full auto machine guns have been used by criminals to commit crimes, the class III firearms that were used by criminals were stolen from personal ownership of sworn police officers

Federal law does not BAN class III firearms, nor has it ever banned any firearms. Some states of the US have banned class III firearms. Virginia has
not banned class III firearms. Virginia does require by law that any class III firearm be registered with the Virginia State Police within 24 hours of entering the state by the owner. Virginia law also does not permit carrying a class III firearm in public or transporting a class III firearm that are loaded, They must be unloaded with ammunition stored separately, to carry or transport a loaded class III firearm is considered "having possession of a machine gun for aggressive purpose" and the firearm may be confiscated. Other states may have similar laws, anyone who is interested in purchasing a class III firearm must read all applicably laws and fully understand them

Suffice to say I would not attempt to walk in the street, or participate in a demonstration with a class III firearm even if it was not loaded, the heat would be intense and it could take months to years at great legal expense to get it returned with numerous scratch's and gouges after it "slipped in the shower" during storage

Law abiding citizens can get a class III manufactures license and build any type of full auto machine gun your hearts desire, and transport them anywhere in the nation to test them, have them evaluated or sold. However the only legal sales are to official US law enforcement agencies or the US military. Sales can also be made to foreign governments with approval of the US Dept of State.

If you can believe Wiki, here's there say on Class III firearms and manufactures

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Firearms_License

Theres no special Constitutional right that only large corporations may manufacture firearms or sell them, The private citizen has the same rights as they do . However the Democrats have placed special taxes upon the class III manufactures to attempt individuals from entering into this lawful business endeavor, there was no compelling reason to do so, but Obstruct and Resist ! Anything new here people ?

BTW I considered that the BATFE may require registering Bump stocks as class III firearms, but there's still that BUSH cap on the total number, New regs on the Bump Stocks will be coming out soon it appears

My interpretation of the 2nd is forthcoming not forgotten

>Purchaser of firearms ()

Its completely understood that there are Democrats who voted for Obama and Hillary that think their personal firearms are safe from any gun bans

They aren't safe at all as Democrats want every one of them in their final plans, such people are only FOOLING themselves

DONT BE THE FOOL! NEVER AGAIN VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT IF YOU VALUE YOUR FREEDOM THAT THE FOUNDERS GAVE YOU UNDER THE 2nd AMENDMENT and The entire US Constitution and Bill of Rights

One look at what they did in the Senate confirmation hearings is only the tip of the iceburg

>if you think small arms are going to be enough to overthrow the government

On what side the US military is on, not civil authorities if any political powers attempted to destroy the US Constitution by use of unlawful force of civil authority against the people with unconstitutional laws being passed, upheld by tainted political unconstitutional courts and the citizens that want the Constitution upheld then resisted with force as their only resort to uphold the Constitution of the United States.

One reason the founders wrote the 2nd into the law of the land.

To enable the citizens as the militia to Protect and Defend The Constitution of the United States Against All Enemies Foreign and Domestic , the same as the military

Would be called a "Constitutional Crisis", a real one, not just political rhetoric and I don't think that that will occur in the near future or farther of the United States, laws may be passed and courts will rule and the majority as myself will accept their rulings and use the lawful method to make changes as the founders intended

"The Ballot Box on election day"

An invasion of the US by a foreign powers is another issue and reason the founders wrote the 2nd, the US military will totally be on the side of the American people if that ever happens

The 2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution within the Bill of Rights

"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"

Music To Read By https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJepYzH1VUY

Interpretation by "Dear Old Dixie of The Commonwealth Of Virginia" Posted Oct 16th 2018 upon the message forum Fairfax Underground. These are my words in writing and not those of any other person however many of my thoughts are shared in full by many Americans and may be stated exactly as I have written here

The term arm can be many types of arms including firearms as the founders understood the term , a sword is a arm, in their day and age and still is today

My interpretation starts with the first part of the 2nd amendment

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state"


1. The militia was when the 2nd amendment was written and is today the body of the people of the United States, not any National Guard as it did not exist.
.As such the militia are the people
2. People of moral character that were not criminals were members of the militia , criminals that had not received pardons were not members of the militia , criminals that had received pardons were members of the militia
3. The people will obey the lawful orders of the federal government executive and of state governors of states of the union if they are called out in an emergency to serve as a organized militia with officers assigned by the executive or governors as needed against an enemy or a mob of lawless people
4. The peoples right to bear arms may be regulated by laws passed by the congress by veto override or signature of the executive
5. The people must be able to protect and defend the Constitution and rule of law as necessary in emergencies
6. The people must be able to protect their lives, their families lives, the people of their settlement, there town or city or county, their state, the nation as necessary in emergencies from threats from criminals or mobs or invaders of a foreign nation or from those who attempt to overthrow the government and not uphold the Constitution in acts of sedition

The easy part to interpret is the last part of the 2nd

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

1. The people have an individual right to bear arms in their homes or upon their person
2. The people must be able to train and use their arms in practice to become proficient in the use of the arms
3. Congress has the power to regulate by law the peoples right to bear arms, but it shall not create laws that infringe on the rights of the people to bear arms
Thus congress shall not pass laws that are not reasonable such as complete bans on firearms or ammunition magazines, with out regulating such arms or magazines,nor shall congress pass any laws that create an unbalance of the powers of the federal government with relation to the Constitution and the rights of the people within the Bill of Rights such as an "assault firearms ban " "high capacity magazine bans" ["assault firearms" or "high capacity magazines" allowed for the military and the police and not allowed for the people to bear]
4. Congress may pass laws that prohibit bearing arms within certain zones, such as in protests, in the courts, in congress itself where emotions are inflamed and arms may be used in the heat of emotion for criminal attack
Or in airports or other public transportation systems where a person with possession of a arm can cause massive loss of life
Prohibiting arms possession except by law enforcement in these two examples are a very limited and temporary ban on the right to bear arms and thus not a infringement. A nationwide ban of the right to bear`arms by the people without regulation is an unconstitutional infringement
5. Laws that require excessive taxes or costs that raise the cost of arms and ammunition are infringement or any unreasonably delays in obtaining arms are an infringement
6. Laws such as a requirement to buy insurance to bear arms or ammunition are an infringement
7. Laws to allow lawsuits by persons injured or killed by arms are an infringement unless such harm resulted for a arm that failed to properly operate and has manufacturing defect
8. Any laws that create excessive taxes or fees to obtain or possess arms or ammunition are an infringement
9. Any laws that ban materials used in the manufacture of a arm or ammunition are an infringement, [use of steel shot is a game law, lead shot is available and thus steel shot using in a shot gun for hunting game is not a infringement]
10. The people have a right to carry arms concealed with a permit to insure the people are lawful to posses a arm
Shall issue concealed permits are not infringement
May issue concealed permits are infringement
11. Shall issue Permits to purchase arms as well as waiting periods that are not excessive are not infringement to insure the people are lawful
12. Background checks to purchase or obtain arms are not infringement if they are processed without unreasonably delay or cost
13. Laws that require all arms to be transferred [bought, traded, gifted, won] thru a federal licensed firearms dealer in person are not an infringement
14. Arms may be prohibited to be on the person of the people in many other examples and such laws are not an infringement and arms may be carried by law enforcement or the military where emotions are inflamed in certain government buildings, public forums of free speech, protests , riots [where law enforcement is able to control such rioters and are the authority , where the militia is not called to act by the proper authority to control such rioters or deputized as law enforcement to provide assistance] and in places where security must be maintained such as jails or prisons or military bases or other government facilities, or in businesses where the private owners of the business object to the public being armed in their place of business, as these are limited time periods when the people are within these areas thus that is why it is not infringement
15. Many examples of infringement too numerous to contain here in my interpretation exist
16. Any laws that require a chief law enforcement officer to act on any form to obtain any arm must be processed by the officer and acted upon, to refuse to act is infringement (class III firearms statement required by a chief law enforcement officer where the purchaser of the firearm lives or any other form required to obtain a firearm )
17. Any laws that discriminate for reasons or race , religion, nationality, gender, or sexual preference are infringement



Edited 8 time(s). Last edit at 10/17/2018 01:49AM by Dixie.

The 2nd Amendment was part of the slave compromises that were necessary to get a badly needed new national charter ratified back in the 18th century. That's done now and we don't have slavery anymore either, so the amendment is actually moot and without any original purpose at all, this regardless of the inanity in what Scalia once made up.

True, if you wanted to rely on 'original intent', there is nothing left of the 2nd Amendment at all. What it was at the time has all been overtaken by events.

Talking to himself, the only cure is to allow a panel of leftists and liberals Democrats completely rewrite the Constitution , Bill Ayers will be the chief of the panel, other members will be Obama, Hillary, Schumer, Durbin, Warren, Kaine and Warner using the writings of Lenin Stalin Mao Ho Fidel and Che as their guide

Dead letter office Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The 2nd Amendment was part of the slave
> compromises that were necessary to get a badly
> needed new national charter ratified back in the
> 18th century.



Please document the connection between the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America and slavery or the "slave compromises".

Reduce your levels of pathetic ignorance. Read some actual history of the Constitution. Read the Virginia debates of ratification. It’s easy if you try.

People who call people names and use contractions in debate usually don't have an argument, If they have an argument, it's usually a pretty weak one. They're usually pretty bad at debates, too. I see this all the time so I notice it and stuff.

The 2nd Amendment was part of the slave
> compromises that were necessary to get a badly
> needed new national charter ratified back in the
> 18th century.

How does that change what the founders wrote in the 2nd ?

'A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED "

Yes explain

It means they had no thought of creating an individual right. That was manufactured out of whole cloth 200 years after the fact.

Is the 2nd in the Bill Of Rights where individual rights are, instead of the Constitution where the founders authorized the congress to create the US military

That authorization allowed congress to fund the US military, no such funding was authorized for the militia of the body of the people, hence the founders gave the people the right to keep and bear arms to use their own personal arms, an individual right so that they could band together as a militia for the peoples common defense in the United States against those who would not uphold the Constitution, the US military being the Nations Defense against foreign enemies and not to be used against the people

A Criminal was a person NOT upholding the Constitution BTW As they were lawless and defied the laws that were passed by the US and the States governments under the states constitutional authority to write laws, You do know that every state was required to have a state constitution to be admitted to the union of states and it had to be in compliance with the federal Constitution

You can call me Dixie professor as I was too lazy to log in

A little music for your liberal ears ?

BTW my ancestors from Pennsylvania fought in the Revolutionary War and in Union Blue many of them during the Civil War, and my family has fought and served in every other war since .. WW1, WW2 , Korea and Vietnam

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5OKdbc0DYpM

Tell Us Professor Why The 2nd Amendment an "individual right of the people" is in The Bill Of rights, "of all the individual rights of the people"

Why would the founders put any rights of the military in the Bill Of Individual Rights of the people . The 10 original individual rights when the Constitution was ratified. When the authorization for the Congress to create the US military is in The Constitution where the rest of the federal powers of the US government are located ??

[Amendment I.]
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

[Amendment II.]
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.

[Amendment III.]
No Soldier shall, in time of peace, be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

[Amendment IV.]
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

[Amendment V.]
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject, for the same offense, to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled, in any criminal case, to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

[Amendment VI.]
In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

[Amendment VII.]
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

[Amendment VIII.]
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

[Amendment IX.]
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

[Amendment X.]
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively or to the people.

Your understandings of our national charters are basically non-existent. The Constitution was written to enumerate and specifically assign certain POWERS to a new and much stronger central government while necessarily implying others.

For their part, the Federalists were convinced that they had not created any power that could have abridged any legitimate RIGHTS of the people. The Anti-Federalists basically agreed, but worried that in the future, some charlatan or demagogue might be clever enough to corrupt the founders' original meaning. They felt therefore that a list of protected rights should be specified and appended to the new Constitution.

Federalists were quick to point out that no list of every right of the people could ever be produced and that actual rights somehow not appearing in an official list would ultimately be lost to the people.

In September of 1789, in fulfillment of a promise made two years earlier in Philadelphia, James Madison introduced for submission to the states a bill of twelve proposed amendments to the Constitution intended to address the lingering concerns of the Anti-Fedralists. The first two of those failed of ratification. The other ten were ratified and became Amendments 1-10 effective December 15, 1791.

These new peovisions of course included the Ninth Amendment which a priori invalidates any claim that a right does not exist simply because it is not specifically enumerated. Also included was the Second Amendment in fulfillment of a promise that the new Congress would not use its power to regulate the militia as a means to end slavery.

Back when they still taught Eighth Grade Civics in the public schools, and, you actually had to pass a State Civics Exam before you could move on to high school (this was in California, BTW), the teacher informed us that one of the reasons for the Second Amendment was that it prevented the establishment of a military dictatorship in this country. This item was in the State approved syllabus. In fact, one of the questions on the State Exam was precisely this. It was also on a classroom test the teacher gave (yes, even back then, in the public schools, they taught the test, to some degree, at least).

Now, of course, the public schools have replaced Eighth Grade Civics with White People Are Bad Class or Celibrate Gay Or Fail For The Year Class.

It's the increasing number of PC-violating assholes that drives the need for cultural awareness programs these days. Ordinary civics is still taught of course, though no serious person today believes that the 2nd Amendment will in any way allow ordinary citizens to stand against the armed might of the state.

Your interpretation of the founders intent is yours and primarily shared by gun control activists with liberal federal judges going along in some cases

The questions remain for you to answer

Why are individual rights of the people contained in the Bill of Rights ?

Why does the Constitution state the rights of the federal government, the creation of a military, the balance of powers of the federal government with regard to the house, the senate,, the judiciary , powers of the chief executive, impeachments, veto's, and HOW to amend and ratify the Constitution while individual rights are contained in the Bill of Rights which many of the founders required to be included in the Constitution to be able to ratify the Constitution , as individual rights of the people were as important to the founders as the setting up of the federal govt in the Constitution was

The 2nd amendment is clearly an individual right of the people to bear arms, subject to regulations that do not infringe upon the individual right

Why don't you amend the Constitution remove the 2nd and ratify your amendment, instead of using the courts with end runs around the Constitution to support your gun control activist plans

Shape up, sociopaths... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's the increasing number of PC-violating
> assholes that drives the need forschools to put in all these cultural
> awareness programs these days. Ordinary civics is
> stillnot taught because the schools need room on the schedule for courses like White People Are Bad, Self-Esteem and Celibrate Gay Or Fail For The Year taught of course, though no serious person
> today[s/]only a person who has learned nothing from history doesn't believes that the 2nd Amendment will in any
> way allow ordinary citizens to stand against the
> armed might of the state.{b]After all, it was basically a bunch of whackjob farmers armed with outdated and stolen weapons who kicked the mightiest military in the world out of what became the USA[/b]


FIFY

Fixer of It for You Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Shape up, sociopaths... Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > It's the increasing number of
> PC-violating
> > assholes that drives the need
> forschools to put in all these
> cultural
> > awareness programs these days. Ordinary civics
> is
> > stillnot taught because the schools
> need room on the schedule for courses like White
> People Are Bad, Self-Esteem and Celibrate Gay Or
> Fail For The Year taught of course,
> though no serious person
> > todayonly a person who has learned
> nothing from history doesn't believes
> that the 2nd Amendment will in any
> > way allow ordinary citizens to stand against
> the
> > armed might of the state.{b]After all, it was
> basically a bunch of whackjob farmers armed with
> outdated and stolen weapons who kicked the
> mightiest military in the world out of what became
> the USA[/b]
>
>
> FIFY

Registered Identification Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Dead letter office Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The 2nd Amendment was part of the slave
> > compromises that were necessary to get a badly
> > needed new national charter ratified back in
> the
> > 18th century.
>
>
>
> Please document the connection between the Second
> Amendment to the Constitution of the United States
> of America and slavery or the "slave compromises".

It's nothing but made up bullshit. Unfortunately, there are some idiots who actually believe this because they want to. If you close your eyes real right,
cross your fingers and wish really hard, it's still bullshit. Not a word
about this in the Federalist Papers.

The Federalist Papers were written in late 1787 and early 1788. An actual draft of the 2nd Amendment didn’t exist until 1789. You could learn a good deal though
by reading the debates over ratification in the Virginia legislature.

Dead letter office Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Federalist Papers were written in late 1787
> and early 1788. An actual draft of the 2nd
> Amendment didn’t exist until 1789. You could
> learn a good deal though
> by reading the debates over ratification in the
> Virginia legislature.


Yes, actually it did. It's taken near directly from the VA Declaration of Rights and PA Constitution dating from 1776 (with earlier origins if you want to go back beyond that).


VA
XII. 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.

PA
XIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

As well as those of NC, VT, and MA.

And you expected to see discussion of this in the Federalist Papers? Your status as an incompetent dumbfuck has been secured for all time. Why are right-wingers so anxious to show off how fucking dumb they are?

The Dead Letter Office even stated here that

>Federalists were quick to point out that no list of every right of the people could ever be produced

Yes and My list of what I consider to be infringements or not is endless as well

SO AGAIN WHY DID THE FOUNDERS REQUIRE THE BILL OF RIGHTS with the 10 original amendments of the constitution included to ratify the Constitution

And WHY DID THE FOUNDERS PICK THESE 10 MAJOR ISSUES OF THEIR DAY?

The 1st amendment in place #1 of the Bill of Rights, to allow the people the individual right to free speech, to allow the people to praise or damm any proposed rules, laws or regulations that the Congress may pass and put their opinions of ANYTHING in print or speech ! The most important right of all !

The 2nd amendment in place #2 of the Bill of Rights, to allow the people the individual right to keep and bear arms without infringement, a totally necessary right the founders agreed that must be in place in the Constitution as they had just successfully created the new nation with the patriots of liberty using their own personal firearms they kept to bring victory to the people to achieve the birth of a new nation of liberty ! The United States of America

NOW LIE out of it and tell us how the British armed Gen. Washington's Army and all of the patriots of the American Revolution that gave the founders the right to even write a Constitution of the United States of America

And WHY DID THE FOUNDERS PICK THESE 10 MAJOR ISSUES OF THEIR DAY?

The answer is that 10 amendments were ratified by the states, there were 124 amendments put forward by the states. In the First session of The US Congress the house adopted 17 the senate rejected 2, the final 12 were adopted by the house and the senate and sent by the house to the states on Sept. 25th 1789 . The states ratified the 10 original amendments which are posted above earlier by myself when the state of Virginia ratified articles 2 thu 12 on Dec 15, 1791. The 2nd amendment was also ratified on that date

********** ********** ********** ********** ********** The United States Of America May the Stars and Stripes Fly Over This Nation Forever


The founders then relaxed said No problem Bro, and proceeded to roll a huge blunt of the kindest buds and burn large

I have to give the liberals something lol ^^

Attachments:

Both are for pussies but one identifies you as a man while the other might allow you to feel manly.
Attachments:

Article Seventeen of the Massachusetts Constitution allows for the right to bear arms. It was adopted by plebiscite in 1780. Massachusetts effectively banned slavery in 1781 and absolutely in the Spring of 1783. It did so by judicial review; the only state that ever banned slavery in that manner. Public sentiment in Massachusetts was virulently anti-slavery.

Article Sixteen of the Vermont Constitution of 1777 allows for the right to bear arms. Article One of the Vermont Constitution prohibits slavery in both title and text. Public sentiment in Vermont was also virulently anti-slavery. Vermont was not admitted until 1791, but its current constitution is the same minus the complaints against New York and New Hampshire in its preamble and plus subsequent amendments. Articles One and Sixteen from 1777 still stand in the current constitution.

Article Thirteen of the Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776 allows for the right to bear arms. This constitution was superseded in 1790. In 1780, Pennsylvania passed a law that required the gradual abolition of slavery in that state. While it was not an absolute ban, as were the Massachusetts and Vermont bans, still, it was an anti-slavery action taken before the War of Independence had ended and when these three were still technically British dominions.

Thus, we see support for rights to bear arms even in free states, as these states had either banned or acted against slavery even before the end of the War of Independence. Thus, there is not necessarily a connexion between the Second Amendment and the maintenance of slavery in the United States.

Dixie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The states ratified the 10 original amendments which are
> posted above earlier by myself when the state of Virginia
> ratified articles 2 thu 12 on Dec 15, 1791. The 2nd
> amendment was also ratified on that date

You are such a plodder. Proposed amendments 3 through 12 were eventually ratified. The first and second were not. What had been proposed as Amendment 4 thus became the second instead.

Scholar Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thus, we see support for rights to bear arms even
> in free states, as these states had either banned
> or acted against slavery even before the end of the
> War of Independence. Thus, there is not necessarily
> connexion between the Second Amendment and the
> maintenance of slavery in the United States.

State constitutions were not even remotely under actual discussion in Philadelphia in 1787. What the delegates there and then were all about was the need of somehow preserving the rapidly disintegrating union by creating a new and much more powerful central government -- one that might actually be capable of governing a fractious bunch of self-serving states.

This is where the US Constitution was born, and where the slave compromises were hashed out so as to maximize prospects for ratification of the newly amended charter. One of those compromises dealt with Article 1 language that gave Congress broad power "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia..." Fears arose on the right that the new Congress might use such power to disarm the militias (actually slave patrols) as part of an effort to end slavery. It was this fear that was addressed in promises made in 1787 and delivered upon by Madison in 1789.

Dead letter office Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Scholar Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Thus, we see support for rights to bear arms
> even
> > in free states, as these states had either
> banned
> > or acted against slavery even before the end of
> the
> > War of Independence. Thus, there is not
> necessarily
> > connexion between the Second Amendment and the
> > maintenance of slavery in the United States.
>
> State constitutions were not even remotely under
> actual discussion in Philadelphia in 1787.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> This is where the US Constitution was born, and
> where the slave compromises were hashed out so as
> to maximize prospects for ratification of the
> newly amended charter.
>
>
>
> the new Congress might use such
> power to disarm the militias (actually slave
> patrols) as part of an effort to end slavery. It
> was this fear that was addressed in promises made
> in 1787 and delivered upon by Madison in 1789.



Consideration, of state constitutions, or lack thereof, in Philadelphia or elsewhere is beside the point. The revisionist historians, to whose theories you obviously subscribe, are asserting that both proponents and supporters of the inclusion of the Second Amendment were of that mind because they intended to use it to perpetuate slavery. That delegates to the convention came from states that already had both a right to bear arms and, a prohibition against slavery debunks said theories of said revisionist historians.


Note that I pass over that the nine states necessary ratified the Constitution of the United States of America without its first ten amendments (back when they still taught Civics in eighth grade, it was often erroneously presented that the Constitution was ratified by the states with its first ten amendments).


This is simply an attempt by the Left to characterise the Second Amendment and its supporters as racist. The Left, in keeping with its characteristic elitism, assumes that people are too stupid to see right through it. If the Left can convince enough people that it is "racist", it can move toward repeal. The Left certainly has milked more than a small amount of mileage out of its characterising Second Amendment supporters as crazy, racist, ignorant wahoos. The way in which some of these gun owners conduct themselves, especially with and around firearms, only gives the Left more "ammunition" (if you will pardon the relevant choice of words). Further, it gives those of us legitimate and responsible owners of firearms a bad name.



Oh, and please do not think that I missed your embedded characterisation of militias as "slave patrols" as if it were a fact. That is an old and often successful tactic, but I have been around too long for it to fool me. I will pass over Massachusetts', Pennsylvania's and Vermont's maintaining militias which could not have been "slave patrols" as slavery was illegal or in the process of becoming so in those states. This, also, passes over Connecticut's, Rhode Island's and New Hampshire's banning slavery in 1784, while maintaining militias, three years before the writing and five before the adoption of the current Constitution.


The labelling of the Second Amendment as "racist" and an attempt to bolster that with revisionist pseudo-scholarship is a rather clever tactic of the Left, especially in these days of the revival of guilty white liberalism. It also reeks of gradualism, another tactic of the Left. Still, those who actually can think (....and the Left hates us more than it hates extreme Rightists, because at least they are lemmings and can be programmed, whereas we can not) will see right through this.

Scholar Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Consideration, of state constitutions, or lack thereof,
> in Philadelphia or elsewhere is beside the point.

Then a fair question would be over why it was ever raised?

> The revisionist historians, to whose theories you
> obviously subscribe, are asserting> that both
> proponents and supporters of the inclusion of the
> Second Amendment were of that mind because they
> intended to use it to perpetuate slavery.

Further undermining any claims for your status as a 'scholar', you have totally misunderstood both the point and the actual history of the matter.

> Note that I pass over that the nine states
> necessary ratified the Constitution of the United
> States of America without its first ten amendments
> (back when they still taught Civics in eighth
> grade, it was often erroneously presented that the
> Constitution was ratified by the states with its
> first ten amendments).

LOL! What schools taught you that other schools were actually doing that?

> This is simply an attempt by the Left to
> characterise the Second Amendment and its
> supporters as racist.

It's an attempt by ACTUAL scholars to put the Second Amendment back into the ACTUAL historical context and climate that gave it birth.

> The Left certainly has milked more than a small amount
> of mileage out of its characterising Second Amendment
> supporters as crazy, racist, ignorant wahoos.

Such a task would have been a great deal more difficlut had so many latter day Second Amendment supporters not in fact been crazy, racist, ignorant wahoos/yahoos.

> Further, it gives those of us legitimate and responsible
> owners of firearms a bad name.

What gives you a bad name is the all too impressive rate at which 'law abiding gun owners' flip out and turn into crazed mass murderers. It's a risk that many are getting rather tired of running.

> Oh, and please do not think that I missed your
> embedded characterisation of militias as "slave
> patrols" as if it were a fact.

It IS a fact. Fear of slave uprisings was a genuine fear of the time, and marching young white toughs around with their guns was a principal way of instilling fear among enslaved and of course unarmed blacks.

> The labelling of the Second Amendment as "racist"
> and an attempt to bolster that with revisionist
> pseudo-scholarship is a rather clever tactic of
> the Left, especially in these days of the revival
> of guilty white liberalism.

Guilty white escapism is what you meant here, as in your own attempts to run away from your own tarnished heritage.

>You are such a plodder.

Im Dear Old Dixie of The Commonwealth Of Virginia

10 amendments were ratified, there were 134 to start from the states, it does not matter what number they were assigned as articles.

The only thing that matters is that the 10 chosen to be ratified became The Bill of Rights and the 2nd amendment gave the individual right to the people to bear arms without infringement

" 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 Words of the Founders in the 2nd amendment of the Bill of Rights of the Constitution of the United states of America Ratified December 15th 1791 by the last state to ratify the Bill of rights

The Commonwealth of Virginia
Attachments:

I present the date Dec 15, 1791 as the date the Bill of Rights was ratified. I have stated in the forum, not this thread that the 13th state Rhode Island ratified the Constitution on May 29th 1790, that was only to show the date the final state of the 13 original states ratified the Constitution.

The Constitution was ratified by the 9th state New Hampshire to ratify the Constitution on June 21st 1788.

As I have stated the 1st session of the then new Congress of the United States is where the debates and ratification of the Bill of Rights occurred


I did state at the beginning as the Op of this thread

"2. Any illegal child or other illegal porn Cary please instantly remove it and notify law enforcement and I know Cary will do that when he sees it. Porn freaks are not interested in political discussions , facts or anything other then their own sicko satisfaction of seeing what they enjoy ambushing others who do not want to see it at all!

The rest all comes in full living FXU color of Your 1st amendment right to free speech"

Gay Porn is not my idea of "Full Living Color" in any way shape form or colors but it must be a part of FXU's idea of that theme, its a grey area of law nationally at least in public forums like this one, In private emails, on sites you have to log in and state your 21 that's a different area I would think. I have never partaken of any such gay or other porn in any form other then reading Playboy and Penthouse Hustler and other printed materials when they did not put any Gay porn in the magazines. Of course I read these magazines,

FOR THE EDITORIAL CONTENT ONLY ! lol

I welcome all posts of anything related to this thread, with complete free speech, but please keep the porn off, That all I can hope for.

I do not consider pictures of scantly clad females in skimpy bikinis holding firearms to be porn as a confirmed male chauvinistic pig lol

So to be fair I cant say the same pics of scantly clad men with firearms for Gays enjoyment to be porn either, my computer does have a scroll capacity to ignore such pics lol

Attention, Dummies — no indididual right existed prior to Scalia’s imagining one
In Heller.

https://youtu.be/lI4g1OrQCCk

https://youtu.be/K7hiXpjdyVE
Attachments:

>Attention, Dummies — no indididual right existed prior to Scalia’s imagining one
In Heller.

Lenin would agree America does not

Says The Commie Mole Wrote: https://youtu.be/nKIf-9fAm8A
-------------------------------------------------------
> https://youtu.be/ePu8K0zTGa0



>Attention, Dummies — no indididual right
> existed prior to Scalia’s imagining one
> In Heller.
>
> Lenin would agree America does not
Attachments:

Universal background checks with a computerized data base

Those Americans who blow the weed up in Canada will be watched, and their names ran thru that data base

If they posses firearms they will be promptly arrested as felons in possession of a firearm when they come home

The Democrats will not be able or even want to help them out of it, as grabbing all the guns anyway they can is part of their final solution

Vote GOP Never Democrats if you want your freedom to continue

With Democrats in control The Chief of The Secret Police is just around the corner of your liberty
Attachments:

When Democrats Get Wrote: https://youtu.be/GLV07jcZ7hY
-------------------------------------------------------
> Universal background checks with a computerized
> data base
>
> Those Americans who blow the weed up in Canada
> will be watched, and their names ran thru that
> data base
>
> If they posses firearms they will be promptly
> arrested as felons in possession of a firearm when
> they come home
>
> The Democrats will not be able or even want to
> help them out of it, as grabbing all the guns
> anyway they can is part of their final solution
>
> Vote GOP Never Democrats if you want your freedom
> to continue
>
> With Democrats in control The Chief of The Secret
> Police is just around the corner of your liberty
Attachments:

Dead letter office Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Then a fair question would be over why it was ever
> raised?
>
> >
>
> Further undermining any claims for your status as
> a 'scholar', you have totally misunderstood both
> the point and the actual history of the matter.
>
> > N
>
> LOL! What schools taught you that other schools
> were actually doing that?
>
> >
>
> It's an attempt by ACTUAL scholars to put the
> Second Amendment back into the ACTUAL historical
> context and climate that gave it birth.
>
>
>
> Such a task would have been a great deal more
> difficlut had so many latter day Second Amendment
> supporters not in fact been crazy, racist,
> ignorant wahoos/yahoos.
>
>
> What gives you a bad name is the all too
> impressive rate at which 'law abiding gun owners'
> flip out and turn into crazed mass murderers. It's
> a risk that many are getting rather tired of
> running.
>
> >
>
> It IS a fact. Fear of slave uprisings was a
> genuine fear of the time, and marching young white
> toughs around with their guns was a principal way
> of instilling fear among enslaved and of course
> unarmed blacks.
>
> >
>
> Guilty white escapism is what you meant here, as
> in your own attempts to run away from your own
> tarnished heritage.


Why was WHAT ever raised? By whom? Your question is, at best, vague.


I misunderstand nothing. I have read the same documents that you have. Your statement is vague. It undermines whatever it is that you are trying to pass off as an "argument".


HUH?


Marry, sirrah, it is an attempt by pseudo-scholars to paint the Second Amendment as racist and from there to goad guilty white liberals into demanding its repeal. "Racist" and its forms are simply a Left wing buzzword(s). The Left labels anyone who is not in lockstep with its agenda as "racist", among other superlatives.

HUH?

That is nothing but embellishment and sensationalism and is totally devoid of any basis in fact.


It is anything but a fact, if for no other reason than you can not characterise militias in states where slavery was illegal as "slave patrols". I will pass over those militias' being created to defend against attacks from the Indians as well as from the French and finally to fight the British. Yes, there were slave revolts, but the militias were not created solely to deal with slave revolts as you and your revisionist "historians" would have us believe.

I have no guilt for anything, so crash goes that "escapism" chariot. You know nothing about me, so how can you claim to know anything about my heritage? I have stood up and said it and will continue to stand up and state the I feel no guilt for anything nor will I accept any guilt or blame. I never did anything to perpetuate slavery, no one whose DNA that I am carrying ever did anything to perpetuate slavery. No one whose DNA that I am carrying ever held slaves in the New World. I run from nothing, therefore I am trying to escape from nothing.

You know what happens when you "assume", correct? In your case, you failed with me, but made one of yourself in a manner most convincing.


Note that I continue to pass over court rulings that the right to bear arms is separate from the function of the militia, as the courts have ruled. Further, if you read several of the state constitutions that contain a right to bear arms, you will see that among the stated purposes of that right is to allow citizens to protect themselves. Article Sixteen of the Vermont Constitution is one such. Article One of that same Constitution, said constitution adopted in 1777, bans slavery.

Scholar Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > Then a fair question would be over why it was ever raised?

> Why was WHAT ever raised? By whom? Your question is, at best, vague.

HINT: Provisions of state constitutions that were raised BY YOU. Try to follow along a little better. Your most recent post by the way is grandly evasive in both its form and content. I will simply call you an asshole for that and move on.

> > Further undermining any claims for your status as
> > a 'scholar', you have totally misunderstood both
> > the point and the actual history of the matter.

> I misunderstand nothing. I have read the same documents
> that you have.

Highly unlikely that you have read much of anything. You are basically a complete and untutored fraud with regard to the history that book-ended the Constitutional era.

> > LOL! What schools taught you that other schools
> > were actually doing that?

> HUH?

You heard me, clown-boy. In what schools was it often erroneously presented that the Constitution was ratified by the states with its first ten amendments. HUH is not an answer. You HAVE no answer. None at all.

> > It's an attempt by ACTUAL scholars to put the
> > Second Amendment back into the ACTUAL historical
> > context and climate that gave it birth.

> Marry, sirrah, (<<< foppish Shakespearean over-reach
> by an impudent whelp) it is an attempt by pseudo-scholars
> to paint the Second Amendment as racist and from there to
> goad guilty white liberals into demanding its repeal.
> "Racist" and its forms are simply a Left wing buzzword(s).
> The Left labels anyone who is not in lockstep with its
> agenda as "racist", among other superlatives.

Racists are racists, and by their racism, ye shall know them. There is simply no getting around that. The word 'racist' however is not a superlative in any plain grammatical sense of the word. You fucked that bit up as well.

> > Such a task would have been a great deal more
> > difficult had so many latter day Second Amendment
> > supporters not in fact been crazy, racist,
> > ignorant wahoos/yahoos.

> HUH?

Do you know what a crazy, racist, ignorant wahoos/yahoo looks like? Are you in denial as to their very existence?

> > What gives you a bad name is the all too impressive
> > rate at which 'law abiding gun owners' flip out and
> > turn into crazed mass murderers. It's a risk that many
> > are getting rather tired of running.

> HUH?

Lost your place again? The day before some clown flips out and goes off on some murderous rampage, gun-nuts will be out defending his God-given right to obtain all the weapons and stores of ammunition that he pleases. When the next day, the guy shoots and kills a bunch of innocent people, gun-nuts will claim that liberals should have enacted better mental health programs. I will propose the YOU are the sort of mental defective that the rest of us actually need protection from.

> > It IS a fact. Fear of slave uprisings was a
> > genuine fear of the time, and marching young white
> > toughs around with their guns was a principal way
> > of instilling fear among enslaved and of course
> > unarmed blacks.

> It is anything but a fact, if for no other reason
> than you can not characterise militias in states
> where slavery was illegal as "slave patrols".

It was the southern slave-holding states that the promised 2nd Amendment was intended to placate. The power of the new Congress to regulate the militia did indeed cause deep-seated angst and fear in the south, and a promise of Congressional forbearance was clearly an effort to assuage such concerns. One would not have needed to be a wizard -- Imperial or otherwise -- to have figured that one out. Your need of and resort to patent deflection here says much about the sincerity of your post.

> > Guilty white escapism is what you meant here, as
> > in your own attempts to run away from your own
> > tarnished heritage.

> I have no guilt for anything, so crash goes that
> "escapism" chariot. You know nothing about me,
> so how can you claim to know anything about my
> heritage?

You are indeed a badly disinformed escapist seeking to evade any admission of the blatant favoritism that has been shown to you and those like you for hundreds of years now. You are too much of a cry-baby to admit to the fact that you didn't build that.

> I have stood up and said it and will continue to
> stand up and state the I feel no guilt for anything
> nor will I accept any guilt or blame. I never did
> anything to perpetuate slavery, no one whose DNA that
> I am carrying ever did anything to perpetuate slavery.
> No one whose DNA that I am carrying ever held slaves
> in the New World. I run from nothing, therefore I am
> trying to escape from nothing.

It seems that this 'nothing' haunts you nonetheless. As indeed it should.

>gun-nuts will be out defending his God-given right to obtain all the weapons and stores of ammunition that he pleases.

The NRA and the GOP agrees that mental health issues should be available in background checks that these "flip outs' passed as they had no criminal record

Democrats liberal like you are the ones who object to that

>it was the southern slave-holding states that the promised 2nd Amendment was intended to placate.

LMAO V.G has got a new talking point from his Democrat handlers, that's a P.C lie

I say yes, and you best not be in possession of any firearms as your liberally insane to boot

Dead letter office Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Scholar Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > >
>
>
> >
>
>
> HINT: Provisions of state constitutions that were
> raised BY YOU. Try to follow along a little
> better. Your most recent post by the way is
> grandly evasive in both its form and content. I
> will simply call you an asshole for that and move
> on.
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
>
> >
>
> >
>
> Highly unlikely that you have read much of
> anything. You are basically a complete and
> untutored fraud with regard to the history that
> book-ended the Constitutional era.
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> You heard me, clown-boy. In what schools was it
> often erroneously presented that the Constitution
> was ratified by the states with its first ten
> amendments. HUH is not an answer. You HAVE no
> answer. None at all.
>
> > >
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > Marry, sirrah, (<<< foppish Shakespearean
> over-reach
> > by an impudent whelp)
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > "
> .
> >
>
> >
>
> Racists are racists, and by their racism, ye shall
> know them. There is simply no getting around
> that. The word 'racist' however is not a
> superlative in any plain grammatical sense of the
> word. You fucked that bit up as well.
>
> > >
> > >
>
> > >
> > >
>
> >
>
> Do you know what a crazy, racist, ignorant
> wahoos/yahoo looks like? Are you in denial as to
> their very existence?
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> Lost your place again? The day before some clown
> flips out and goes off on some murderous rampage,
> gun-nuts will be out defending his God-given right
> to obtain all the weapons and stores of ammunition
> that he pleases. When the next day, the guy
> shoots and kills a bunch of innocent people,
> gun-nuts will claim that liberals should have
> enacted better mental health programs. I will
> propose the YOU are the sort of mental defective
> that the rest of us actually need protection from.
>
>
> > >
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > It is anything but a fact, if for no other
> reason
> > than you can not characterise militias in
> states
> > where slavery was illegal as "slave patrols".
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> >
> >
>
> You are indeed a badly disinformed escapist
> seeking to evade any admission of the blatant
> favoritism that has been shown to you and those
> like you for hundreds of years now. You are too
> much of a cry-baby to admit to the fact that you
> didn't build that.
>
> > I have stood up and said it and will continue to
>
> > stand up and state the I feel no guilt for
> anything
> > nor will I accept any guilt or blame. I never
> did
> > anything to perpetuate slavery, no one whose DNA
> that
> > I am carrying ever did anything to perpetuate
> slavery.
> > No one whose DNA that I am carrying ever held
> slaves
> > in the New World. I run from nothing, therefore
> I am
> > trying to escape from nothing.
>
> It seems that this 'nothing' haunts you
> nonetheless. As indeed it should.


Still, you have failed to explain your question. Since you have resorted to schoolyard namecalling, you admit that anything that you attempt to advance as an "argument" is totally lacking in substance and foundation. In short, you admit that you have lost. This means that I do not have to read any further, or post, but I will, just to satisfy my curiousity.

Again, more name calling, but congratulations, you have taken it to a sophomoric level. All the same, ask me why I am not surprised.

STILL more name calling and back to the schoolyard level, I see. As for your question, thank you for clarfying. The school to which I went would be one.


OH MY! We like to bounce back and forth between sophomoric and schoolyard name calling, do we? As for "superlative", since you appear to have some familiarity with the stage, move it forward a few centuries and cross The Pond. I use "superlative" in its dramatic sense, as in how it was used in one scene of GUYS AND DOLLS. If you have only a passing familiarity with drama, it does not surprise me that you missed that one. As for "racist", it is becoming apparent that you use that word as the Left uses it and define it as such. In case you are getting your programming from MSNBC, the Left defines as "racist" as "anyone that disagrees on even the smallest manner". In short, you consider me a "racist" because I do not agree with you, will not lie down and can not be argued away. In other words, it is just more namecalling, this time you have moved it from the schoolyard to the political arena.

Take your own advice when it comes to "try to follow along". Your statement is devoid of reason and totally disconnected. Please clarify it....or can you?


I know where I am. I wonder about you. Your statement is a concoction of embellished stereotypes, profiling and sensationalism. Remeber, it is your side that is quick to criticise profiling and stereotypes. Ask me why I am not surprised. Your side is just as quick as is the Right to profile and stereotype, but when your side does it, it is supposed to be allright. This is simply the double standard of the Left.


The southern states were not the only states that wanted the second. I have cited numerous facts, available to anyone, and, matters of public record to support that. You continue to imply that only the Southern states wanted the Second. That is, of course, convenient to what you attempt to pass off as "arguments" that Second Amendment supporters are automatically "racist". You seem to forget that it was the men of Massachusetts and Vermont who were first into the field and speaking to the British oppressors in the only languages that oppressors understand: blood, powder and lead. No less a southerner than Patrick Henry acknowledged that. While the flower tongued southerners were making fancy speeches, the northerners were shooting. By late 1774, if not early 1775, both Massachusetts and Vermont were in open, armed revolt against the British crown. Take you guilt trip elsewhere. No one who can think for himself wants any part of it.

As you can not answer any of the facts or arguments presented to you, once more, you resort to namecalling. In other words, you admit that you have lost this argument. You go right back to calling anyone who disagrees with you "racist" and keep trying to lay that guilt trip and imagined "privilege" business on anyone who does not agree with you. If you have some guilt that you feel a need to expiate, fine, expiate it, but do not involve me, who feels no guilt, in it.

If, on the other hand, you are of the group that feels that I, who did nothing to anyone, owes you something, I deny your claim. I owe you nothing, I own no one else anything. I never did anything to anyone. No one whose DNA that I am carrying owes anything to anyone, in regard to the matter under discussion, at least. Not only did no one whose DNA that I am carrying ever hold slaves in the New World, but also, those whose DNA that I am carrying initially risked life, liberty and property to fight slavery then fought, bled, and, in some cases, died to put an end to it. That, however, is the subject of another discussion.


"Nothing" is that which I owe anyone in regard to the matter under discussion. That was not even a "nice try". It was more lame and empty, than anything.



Namecalling, vague statements, stereotypes, broad generalisations is all that you have. Your "arguments" are erroneous, totally devoid of substance and contain numerous ad hominem attacks: about what I expect from the Left.

Scholar Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Still, you have failed to explain your question.

My real question is this: Why the hell are you posting in this thread when you have no clue at all about any of it?

The 'Scholar' is actually the 'Stooge'.

Dead letter office Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Scholar Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Still, you have failed to explain your question.
>
>
> My real question is this: Why the hell are you
> posting in this thread when you have no clue at
> all about any of it?
>
> The 'Scholar' is actually the 'Stooge'.


If you are looking for someone who has no clue about any of it, you might try the mirror. You have failed to answer any of my arguments. This, of course, is due to your lacking an answer.

You conclude with your usual schoolyard tactics of namecalling. This this serves only further to affirm your "arguments' " lack of substance. You have failed and failed spectacularly. As every post of yours has contained namecalling, every post that you put up her further affirms the lack of substance in your "arguments" and your failure. Keep posting. The more that you post, the more that you demonstrate your failure.

When you resort to namecalling, you admit that you have no argument. Why do I keep repeating this? It is because when I try to discuss things in an adult manner, you do not pay attention.

I have outlined here the actual history an circumstances of the 2nd Amendment. You were not aware of any of it. You could only manage a doofus-like befuddlement.

Dead letter office Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have outlined here the actual history an
> circumstances of the 2nd Amendment. You were not
> aware of any of it. You could only manage a
> doofus-like befuddlement.


You rendered what is, at best, an incomplete history of it. You left out parts that would be damaging to what you try to pass off as "arguments". When I presented what you omitted, you ignored it. I was aware of all of it and so stated. I simply disagreed with your contentions that its sole purpose was the perpetuation of slavery. I presented facts and documents that supported my disagreement. You failed to counter any of those facts, because you could not. You return to your schoolyard name calling to describe my arguments as you can not answer them.

The tack that you take is not dissimilar to that of the Confederate apologists who insist that the Civil War was not about slavery. When you indicate to them that nine of the eleven secession documents refer specifically to slavery, they ignore that. You did similarly when presented with articles in three state constitutions that contained the right to bear arms. In those states, slavery was illegal. What those articles indicate is that the framers were of the mind that the public should have the right to bear arms. You choose to ignore that.

Again, I am passing over the recent court rulings that have dictated that the right to own firearms is separate from the existence of a militia. There was one local ruling that made mention of that.

This is just one reason why what you have attempted to pass off as "arguments" have failed and will continue to fail. Your namecalling only confirms that part of the tactics that the Left will use in its campaign to repeal the Second will be an attempt to paint it as "racist" and "Confederate". The Left, as shown in your namecalling, thinks that people are too stupid to see through it.

The Left will fail, just as its representative in this little discussion has failed.

Keep up your namecalling. Every time that you do it, you admit that anything that you try to advance as an "argument" is totally devoid of reason, substance or basis in fact; marry, Sirrah, the facts contradict what you attempt to advance as "arguments".

Scholar Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You rendered what is, at best, an incomplete history of it.

This is FFXU, not the Library of Congress. Of course it was incomplete. And yet, it was far more than what you had ever heard before or were currently capable of dealing with.

> When I presented what you omitted, you ignored it.

Because you did no such thing. What you presented was a vapid streams of meaningless babble and disjointed mumbo-jumbo. You are an uneducated boor and unknowing dolt when it comes to the history of the Constitution and the subsequent Bill of Rights and 2nd Amendment.

> I simply disagreed with your contentions that its
> sole purpose was the perpetuation of slavery.

No such contention was ever put forward, you mindless fumble-fuck. The promise of an amendment was put forward by the Federalists as a means of assuaging concerns among the anti-Federalists that an overly ambitious Congress might use its new powers over the militias as a back-door means of seeking to end slavery. This is not a point of debate. It is an historical fact.

> You return to your schoolyard name calling to describe
> my arguments as you can not answer them.

You are slapped silly with schoolyard names because you have indeed never left the schoolyard. You have put no more than a simpering 6th grade intellect on display here and have continued to perform at just such a debased level to this very moment.

> Your namecalling only confirms that part of the tactics
> that the Left will use in its campaign to repeal the
> Second will be an attempt to paint it as "racist" and
> "Confederate".

Calling you names that are more than well-earned is merely a device by which to expose the deep, inelegant, and sophomoric failings of your witless claims. The plain facts are that you bring nothing but bullshit to this particular table. Perhaps there are others where you might have some credibility, but I would frankly tend to doubt it very much. You in any case have earned nothing beyond a big fat goose-egg in this particular arena.

> Keep up your namecalling.

Fine. You're a shameless ignorant asshole, and anyone with even a semblance of exposure to the actual history of the period in question already knows that.

Scholar Wrote:https://youtu.be/Y7su-ljiQ3o
-------------------------------------------------------
> Dead letter office Wrote:https://youtu.be/tFJ2wV_B95c
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I have outlined
> > doofus-like befuddlement.
>
>
Confederate apologists
> the AIDS-inspired "That's What Friends Are For".
> Keep up your namecalling. Every time that you do
> it, you admit that anything that you try to
> advance as an "argument" is totally devoid of
> reason, substance or basis in fact; marry, Sirrah,
> the facts contradict what you attempt to advance
> as "arguments". NIgger!!!!!!!!!!!! Rest In Piss, cum guzzler.
Attachments:

Dead letter office Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Scholar Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
>
>
> This is FFXU, not the Library of Congress. Of
> course it was incomplete. And yet, it was far
> more than what you had ever heard before or were
> currently capable of dealing with.
>
> > When I presented what you omitted, you ignored
> it.
>
> Because you did no such thing. What you presented
> was a vapid streams of meaningless babble and
> disjointed mumbo-jumbo. You are an uneducated
> boor and unknowing dolt when it comes to the
> history of the Constitution and the subsequent
> Bill of Rights and 2nd Amendment.
>
> > I simply disagreed with your contentions that
> its
> > sole purpose was the perpetuation of slavery.
>
> No such contention was ever put forward, you
> mindless fumble-fuck. The promise of an amendment
> was put forward by the Federalists as a means of
> assuaging concerns among the anti-Federalists that
> an overly ambitious Congress might use its new
> powers over the militias as a back-door means of
> seeking to end slavery. This is not a point of
> debate. It is an historical fact.
>
> > You return to your schoolyard name calling to
> describe
> > my arguments as you can not answer them.
>
> You are slapped silly with schoolyard names
> because you have indeed never left the schoolyard.
> You have put no more than a simpering 6th grade
> intellect on display here and have continued to
> perform at just such a debased level to this very
> moment.
>
> > Your namecalling only confirms that part of the
> tactics
> > that the Left will use in its campaign to repeal
> the
> > Second will be an attempt to paint it as
> "racist" and
> > "Confederate".
>
> Calling you names that are more than well-earned
> is merely a device by which to expose the deep,
> inelegant, and sophomoric failings of your witless
> claims. The plain facts are that you bring
> nothing but bullshit to this particular table.
> Perhaps there are others where you might have some
> credibility, but I would frankly tend to doubt it
> very much. You in any case have earned nothing
> beyond a big fat goose-egg in this particular
> arena.
>
> > Keep up your namecalling.
>
> Fine. You're a shameless ignorant asshole, and
> anyone with even a semblance of exposure to the
> actual history of the period in question already
> knows that.


Yes, it is Fairfax Underground, the ultimate battleground of trolls and extremists on one side or the other. This explains why you leave out or ignore the items that debunk your "arguments". It is inconvenient to pay them any attention as it conflicts with your imagined "reasoning".


"Tell it like it is"; it is "meaningless babble" because it totally debunks what you advance as "arguments". I presented items that are well documented and matters of public record. That could hardly be classified as "mumbo-jumbo". Keep up the namecalling. Every time that you do it, you admit, once again, that what you allege to be "arguments" are totally devoid of even the smallest shred of reason. Further, you admit that I have bested you in this little disagreement. When you can not overcome your opponent's arguments, you call him names, CORRECTAMUNDO? This fits the pattern of the Left. As soon as it gets owned, it starts with the namecalling. Namecalling is all that you have. Reason is something that you lack.

I am hardly "slapped silly" with your juvenile namecalling. If that were the case, I would have lain down long past. Of course, you expected me to lie down at your first reply, and, when I did not, the namecalling simply intensified. My continued replies to you and continued demonstrations of the fallacy of your "arguments" are testimony to my not being "slapped silly". Crash goes that chariot.

You designate those names as "well earned" because I have totally destroyed what you imagine to be your "reasoning". No one likes getting owned. Further, you keep coming back and getting owned repeatedly. People like that even less, even though they bring it upon themselves. The only one who has earned a "goose egg" is you. It is likely a large part of the reason why despite my owning you repeatedly, I can not rent you out to anyone. Everyone knows what a goose egg is worth.

Finally, once more, the namecalling proves that your "arguments" have failed, failed miserably and that you must resort to juvenile tactics. No one can dispute that potty mouthed namecalling is juvenile. As you have so correctly stated, this is Fairfax Underground. Potty mouthed posting is the norm.

Is "Good Kill, USA , Obama and T Dog () "one of these " worthy folks" lol

I still take time out for charitable work that seeks to support the efforts of worthy folks in this area

That group would never have included you, of course...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your dammed right it does not include Scholar or I , were real Americans not porn anti-gun anti-American freaks of the left

But keep on with your rebuttals of the 2nd, its your right to speech the same as its an individual right to bear arms, even though your full of baloney

Hey deadletter office Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Your dammed right it does not include Scholar or I...

Should have begun with 'You're' and ended with 'or me.'
The dumb do so much to undermine their own cause.

> But keep on with your rebuttals of the 2nd, its
> your right to speech the same as its an individual
> right to bear arms, even though your full of baloney

Yikes, the 'your' thing again. And what I'm actually nowhere near full of yet is knowledge and understanding of the events and times that brought about our various founding charters. So many are just totally clueless about all that. They cringe even to hear that the DOI was a mere political treatise rather than some noble statement of philosophical principles. Silliness!

What rights of firearms ownership do the American people have in your opinion.

And describe what you view as common sense gun control laws

I and we or We and I who read and post would like the same from Scholar as well as any others out there

Tell Us Postman of Dead Letters Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What rights of firearms ownership do the American
> people have in your opinion.
>
> And describe what you view as common sense gun
> control laws
>
> I and we or We and I who read and post would like
> the same from Scholar as well as any others out
> there
Attachments:

me gun contorl wanting to terrorist attacking!

Dead letter office Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Yikes, the 'your' thing again. And what I'm
> actually nowhere near full of is shit and even yet more shit isThis should be common knowledge by now and
> understanding of the events and times that brought
> about our various founding charters. So many areI'm
> just totally clueless about anythingll that. They cringe
> even to hear me spout my ignorance because I'm such a major bigly ignoramus that the DOI was a mere political
> treatise rather than some noble statement of
> philosophical principles. SThillineththssI'm a thillly thavage!


FIFY

Scholar Wrote:
-----------------------------------------------------
> Yes, it is Fairfax Underground, the ultimate
> battleground of trolls and extremists on one side
> or the other. This explains why you leave out or
> ignore the items that debunk your "arguments". It
> is inconvenient to pay them any attention as it
> conflicts with your imagined "reasoning".

Face it, Fail-Boy, you're a wash-out. You've got nothing to say here at all. Every sophomoric word out of your mouth serves only to further the pattern of your dismal failure. You've never put ten honest or successful minutes into studying the actual before-and-after history of the Philadelphia convention. You're just an ignorant boob-like gasbag spouting off steam and hot gases like the geysers of Yellowstone. There is no health in you. You are just a zero-counting dull-brained nitwit.

I've meanwhile put the facts of that fascinating era before you, and you have been too set in your gloriously disinformed and doltish ways to recognize the reality of them. This is because you both lack and shun the basic and essential tenets of any sort of actual historical competence at all. You'll likely just fail at it again, but you seriously need to wipe the slate clean, then go back to Square-1 and start this whole process all over again.

That's all the leftists ever have and that's all you have got so far V.G.

Where's your list of American firearms laws you want passed, where's your discussion of what rights the American people have to bear arms

Or are you another lousy commie Troll posting both points for max division of the people?

Put it up or STFU Economist Now Exalted Constitutional Law Professor V.G

One only that's all you will get
Attachments:

This thread is in the running for lamest. Between the irrelevant photos and long, boring quoting, it's basically content-free.

Dead letter office Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> S
> Face it, I'm aFail-Boy, you'reand a wash-out. YouI've got
> nothing to say here at all. Every sophomoric word
> out of myour mouth serves only to further the
> pattern of myour dismal failure. YouI've never put
> ten honest or successful minutes into studying the
> actual before-and-after history of the
> Philadelphia convention. You'reI'm just an ignorant
> boob-like gasbag spouting off steam and hot gases
> like the geysers of Yellowstone. There is no
> health in youme. You areI'm just a zero-counting
> dull-brained nitwit.
>
> I've meanwhile put the factsa bunch of BS of that fascinating
> era before you, and you have beenbut I'm too set in myour
> gloriously disinformed and doltish ways to
> recognize the reality of them. This is because
> youI both lack and shun the basic and essential
> tenets of any sort of actual historical competence
> at all. YouI'll likely just fail at it again, but
> youI seriously need to wipe my ass more thoroughly in the future, since I'm a full of shit libTARD self-hater the slate clean, then
> go back to Square-1 and start this whole process
> all over again.




FIFY

Only seriously retarded fudge packing libtards want to repeal the 2nd Amendment.

Libs think only negro criminals should have guns.

Time to deport moron gay libs to NK

Dead letter office Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The 2nd Amendment was part of the slave
> compromises that were necessary to get a badly
> needed new national charter ratified back in the
> 18th century. That's done now and we don't have
> slavery anymore either, so the amendment is
> actually moot and without any original purpose at
> all, this regardless of the inanity in what Scalia
> once made up.


Where'd we get this lame-ass self loathing libstain butt pirate from?


GTFOH.


WHY do liberals support coddling negro criminals?
WHY do liberals support the spread of AIDS??
WHY do liberals support terrorists???

WHY????
WHY?????
WHY??????

.
Attachments:

Q: What do you call a liberal whose home got invaded last night and his wife and daughter got raped?



A: America's newest 2A advocate.

>This thread is in the running for lamest , it's basically content-free.

Yes it sure is BLOKE , if your either a SUBJECT OR A SLAVE ! With No rights to keep and bear arms

Hello, guys! Have anyone faced an ATN branded optics? I am a newbie in hunting and on the way of choosing some good range finder, do you know this company? Is it good enough for the beginner?

I will not leave the house without a gun or two. I live in fear every day.

Recos on long range optics for an RPR? I’m considering a Vortex Viper around $1K.
2nd focal plane only.