2a Rewrite? Sounds like an abortion amendment.

[Pete7469]

Let's not forget that 30+ years ago the concept of "gay marriage" was publicly laughed at. It was ridiculed widely, it looked as absurd as it was when cartooned.

Fast forward to modern day and we see people who "marry" themselves, people who stick their junk into cups of worms, believe they're trans-species, and lunatics like Chunk Yogurt from "The Young Turds" channel who endorse bestiality.





These "people" will never stop. They're drones. Mindless, deliberately ignorant, devoted to promoting ignorance and determined to destroy everything normal, logical and realistic.

This "professor" is "educated" and these ideas it has will NEVER GO AWAY no matter who hard it is ridiculed, rejected, or especially "compromised " with. The 2A is the last bastion of free people on earth. The globalists who want humans to be their labor resource are pushing as hard as they can to undermine this right. It really has been a long term struggle between elites and regular people.


.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Let's not forget that 30+ years ago the concept of "gay marriage" was publicly laughed at. It was ridiculed widely, it looked as absurd as it was when cartooned.

Fast forward to modern day and we see people who "marry" themselves, people who stick their junk into cups of worms, believe they're trans-species, and lunatics like Chunk Yogurt from "The Young Turds" channel who endorse bestiality.





These "people" will never stop. They're drones. Mindless, deliberately ignorant, devoted to promoting ignorance and determined to destroy everything normal, logical and realistic.

This "professor" is "educated" and these ideas it has will NEVER GO AWAY no matter who hard it is ridiculed, rejected, or especially "compromised " with. The 2A is the last bastion of free people on earth. The globalists who want humans to be their labor resource are pushing as hard as they can to undermine this right. It really has been a long term struggle between elites and regular people.


.

This fails as a strawman fallacy.

The thread premise is a ridiculous lie.

 

[jackflash]

Elitist = narcissism. Unfortunately narcissism appears to be a serious problem that refuses to go away as narcissism is today every bit as prevalent as taxation. In all reality narcissism is at the base of every societal problem ever encountered by any & all societies, & looks to be thriving in todays world.

The Narcissism Epidemic and What We Can Do About It

Is narcissism on the rise? If so, can anything be done to curb it?

www.psychologytoday.com

 

[cnm]

The 2A is the last bastion of free people on earth. The globalists who want humans to be their labor resource are pushing as hard as they can to undermine this right.

This is really funny coming from a nation whose economic base was built on chattel slavery: where the 2a was written to allow the slave states to have the ability to put down slave rebellions without recourse to a federal govt suspected of a lack of sympathy.

 

[whitehall]

Maybe that's the end game of the liberal establishment. Increase the size and dilute the effectiveness of the Supreme Court and rewrite the Bill of Rights. First they come for the 2nd Amendment and then they go for the 1st and the rest of them. You wake up one morning and you are living in a Banana Republic.

 

[2aguy]

This is really funny coming from a nation whose economic base was built on chattel slavery: where the 2a was written to allow the slave states to have the ability to put down slave rebellions without recourse to a federal govt suspected of a lack of sympathy.

View attachment 579513

Wow....lies, and more lies.....

With an established legal tradition protecting the right of the people to keep and bear arms coming from England in 1688, it is difficult to argue that the roots of the Second Amendment are racist or meant to deal with potential slave revolts. The English simply were not in the least bit concerned about the potential for slave revolts and "anti-Blackness" in America when they drafted their Bill of Rights in 1688.

------

Invasions from foreign enemies, American Indians, and pirates, but no mention of "anti-Blackness" or the need to prevent or deal with slave revolts.


Why did the writers of the Articles of Confederation go through the trouble of listing out the various threats that necessitated a militia but leave out "anti-Blackness" and slave revolts?


There can be only one parsimonious explanation: the framers of the Articles of Confederation saw invasions from enemies, attacks from American Indians, and piracy as real threats to the fledgling states and felt it necessary to specifically mention these potential threats and lay the groundwork for how the individual states and the confederacy as a whole would respond.

-----

It is here that we find such Founding Fathers as James Madison stating during the Constitutional Convention, "A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty" (hat tip to The Avalon Project at Yale Law School's Lillian Goldman Law Library). In the Annals of Congress, we find Elbridge Gerry asserting without challenge that the purpose of the declaration of rights (Bill of Rights) is "to secure the people against the mal-administration of Government" and that the purpose and use of the militia "is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty." These concerns about the threats posed by a large standing army (not by potential slave revolts) were echoed by other Federalists and Anti-Federalists throughout the ratification process and throughout the debates in Congress, when the first ten amendments were proposed. Indeed, in his first annual message as president in 1801, Thomas Jefferson summed up the prevailing view of the role of the militia best when he said (again, hat tip to The Avalon Project at Yale Law School's Lillian Goldman Law Library):

Uncertain as we must ever be of the particular point in our circumference where an enemy may choose to invade us, the only force which can be ready at every point and competent to oppose them, is the body of neighboring citizens as formed into a militia. On these, collected from the parts most convenient, in numbers proportioned to the invading foe, it is best to rely, not only to meet the first attack, but if it threatens to be permanent, to maintain a defence until regulars may be engaged to relieve them.

It is not necessary to rely solely on history to disprove the "racist Second Amendment" argument. A rational look at the Second Amendment and subsequent actions taken by Congress proves that the Second Amendment had nothing to do with race.

For instance, if it were true that the Second Amendment was meant to be a tool to deal with potential slave revolts, then the adoption of the Thirteenth Amendment, which abolished slavery in 1865, would have made the Second Amendment moot.

That Congress did not repeal the Second Amendment when the Thirteenth Amendment was adopted, nor has repealed it since that time, only strengthens the argument that the Second Amendment was not and is not intended to deal with potential slave revolts. Furthermore, that slavery was not just limited to black people of African descent, but extended to American Indians and even black people enslaving people of their own race, proves that even if was a tool to deal with potential slave revolts, it was far from being "anti-Black" or even racist. These inconvenient truths do not fit the narrative.

----

As far as the Second Amendment is concerned, the truth is quite discernible: far from being a tool to disenfranchise or oppress, the Second Amendment is and always has been a mechanism for safeguarding, securing, and protecting the people from foreign threats and an overreaching government. Indeed, the Second Amendment is all about preventing the shackles of slavery from ever being applied to the people, and should that unlucky day come, it is all about shattering those shackles. I

The Second Amendment: Not Racist, but Definitely Pro-Freedom







Spooner used the Second Amendment to argue that slavery was unconstitutional. Since a slave is a person who is (or can be) forbidden to possess arms, and the Second Amendment guarantees that all persons can possess arms, no person in the United States can be a slave.
------
The right of a man "to keep and bear arms," is a right palpably inconsistent with the idea of his being a slave. Yet the right is secured as effectually to those whom the States presume to call slaves, as to any whom the States condescend to acknowledge free.

==============



For 20 years now, a well-meaning law professor has been peddling the fiction that the Second Amendment – guaranteeing the right of Americans to keep and bear arms – was adopted to protect slavery. He first proposed this in a 1998 law review article and trotted it out again in a recent New York Times op-ed.

The trouble is: It’s untrue. Not a single one of America’s founders is known to have suggested such a purpose.

When the Redcoats came to disarm the colonists, the American patriots relied on the right to “have arms for their Defense,” as stated in the English Declaration of Rights of 1689.

In 1776, Pennsylvania declared: “That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves, and the state.” Vermont copied that language in its constitution, which explicitly abolished slavery. Massachusetts and North Carolina adopted their own versions.

When the states debated adoption of the Constitution without a bill of rights in 1787-88, Samuel Adams proposed the right to bear arms in Massachusetts’s ratification convention. The Dissent of the Minority did so in Pennsylvania, and the entire New Hampshire convention demanded recognition of the right.

There was no connection to slavery in any of these historical antecedents.

In his articles, Professor Carl T. Bogus of Roger Williams University speculates that George Mason’s and Patrick Henry’s demands in the Virginia ratification convention could have been motivated to protect slavery. Not so.

Mason recalled that “when the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised … to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”

And Patrick Henry implored: “The great object is, that every man be armed.” The ensuing debate concerned defense against tyranny and invasion – not slavery.

New York, North Carolina and Rhode Island joined in the demand for what became the Second Amendment. The right to bear arms had universal support.

It was the denial of the right of all “the people” to bear arms that supported slavery.

The Supreme Court’s notorious Dred Scott decision held that African-Americans could not be regarded as citizens, for otherwise they could hold political meetings and “keep and carry arms wherever they went.” Frederick Douglass advocated Second Amendment rights for all, and Sojourner Truth carried guns in helping slaves to escape.

The Second Amendment had nothing to do with slavery

 

[Silent Warrior]

This is really funny coming from a nation whose economic base was built on chattel slavery: where the 2a was written to allow the slave states to have the ability to put down slave rebellions without recourse to a federal govt suspected of a lack of sympathy.

View attachment 579513

Perhaps you should have kept your nonsense thoughts to yourself. It is better to stay quiet and be thought a fool than open your mouth and remove all doubt. Your showing of your total lack of understanding of the constitution has removed all doubt. You can't fix stupid.

 

[Pete7469]

Perhaps you should have kept your nonsense thoughts to yourself. It is better to stay quiet and be thought a fool than open your mouth and remove all doubt. Your showing of your total lack of understanding of the constitution has removed all doubt. You can't fix stupid.

Not that I'm defending that bed wetting parasite, but something needs to be addressed.

NONE of the leftist pieces of shit who have posted on this thread or pretty much any other 2A related thread have posted "thoughts" or "conclusions" they developed themselves based on independent analysis of data, facts and truth. Every single one of these genetic disasters are parroting inane drivel they read somewhere else and are more than happy to paste that insipid shit. Most of these vacuous turds do not have the will, much less the capacity to THINK.

The fact that there are "people" who have credentials as "educators", let alone ordinary diplomas and can not understand what 4 year old's recognized about gender when I was growing up 45 years ago. As far as I'm concerned these universities and colleges should be facing class action lawsuits due to their malpractice with malicious intent. The idea that there is a "professor" anywhere within the western hemisphere that would suggest rewriting the 2A without specifically addressing the fact that all free individuals have a right to own and carry the tools that not only ended feudalism, but allowed a nation to shuck the oppression of despotic rule is offensive to anyone that is a cognizant adult.

The fact that the same jabbering Left Syndrome Retard inserted text that would do more to defend abortion proves leftists are criminal sociopaths. This isn't just the ridiculous ramblings of a junkie hobo muttering to themselves as they fish through a trash can looking for something edible. Lunatics like this are dead serious in their intent to crush individual rights, collectivize labor, and exterminate "surplus" human resources. Do not fall victim to the idea that collectivists pursue disarmament out of any concern for "public safety", they endeavor to do so for commissar safety.


.

 

[M14 Shooter]

This fails as a strawman fallacy.
The thread premise is a ridiculous lie.

Says the known liar.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

This is really funny coming from a nation whose economic base was built on chattel slavery: where the 2a was written to allow the slave states to have the ability to put down slave rebellions without recourse to a federal govt suspected of a lack of sympathy.

View attachment 579513

The education system in this country has completely gone to shit. The 2nd Amendment was written to protect the citizenry from a tyrannical government.

 

[cnm]

Your showing of your total lack of understanding of the constitution has removed all doubt.

I suppose actually reading history will do that. Luckily you are safe.

 

[cnm]

The education system in this country has completely gone to shit. The 2nd Amendment was written to protect the citizenry from a tyrannical government.

You've accepted the propaganda fed to you since birth rather than reading actual history. Fair enough, after all, that's what made America great.
The tyrannical government in this case was a federal government suspected of a lack of sympathy to the slave states' concerns over slave uprisings.
The Crackers wanted to be sure they could put down rebellions themselves. In freedom's name of course.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

You've accepted the propaganda fed to you since birth rather than reading actual history. Fair enough, after all, that's what made America great.
The tyrannical government in this case was a federal government suspected of a lack of sympathy to the slave states' concerns over slave uprisings.
The Crackers wanted to be sure they could put down rebellions themselves. In freedom's name of course.

Propaganda I can produce historical quotes by everyone involved with the Constitution that proves the 2nd was about protecting the citizens from a tyrannical government with no mention of putting down a slave rebellion. All you have is yours and the opinion of a bunch of loons who call everything racist.

You show your true nature by using the word cracker . Your no better than the white supremacist douchebag.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The Crackers wanted to be sure they could put down rebellions themselves. In freedom's name of course.

"The crackers" did not need an amendment to the constitution for that.

 

[Pete7469]

I suppose actually reading history will do that. Luckily you are safe.

Being indoctrinated with historical revisionist agitprop is not the same as actually reading history. Try reading The Federalist Papers, which was written by men who actually lived at the time and were in attendance of the Constitutional Convention.

Pieces of shit like you prefer to be "educated" in echo chambers by red diaper baby "intellectual" academics that you believe validate your reactionary hatred of individual rights, limited government and free market capitalism.

You're NOT "EDUCATED", you're a vacuous drone that parrots inane bolshevik agitprop.

.

 

[cnm]

You show your true nature by using the word cracker .

Well it was the Crackers who insisted upon it. Virginian Crackers to be precise.

 

[cnm]

Pieces of shit like you prefer to be "educated" in echo chambers by red diaper baby "intellectual" academics that you believe validate your reactionary hatred of individual rights, limited government and free market capitalism.

The Russians were always jealous that Americans believed their own propaganda. I see nothing has changed.
'Individual rights' !!!
What a laugh.

 

[2aguy]

You've accepted the propaganda fed to you since birth rather than reading actual history. Fair enough, after all, that's what made America great.
The tyrannical government in this case was a federal government suspected of a lack of sympathy to the slave states' concerns over slave uprisings.
The Crackers wanted to be sure they could put down rebellions themselves. In freedom's name of course.

That is a lie....as you have been shown over and over.......slavery wasn't mentioned anywhere n the debates on the 2nd Amendment.....

With an established legal tradition protecting the right of the people to keep and bear arms coming from England in 1688, it is difficult to argue that the roots of the Second Amendment are racist or meant to deal with potential slave revolts. The English simply were not in the least bit concerned about the potential for slave revolts and "anti-Blackness" in America when they drafted their Bill of Rights in 1688.
------
Invasions from foreign enemies, American Indians, and pirates, but no mention of "anti-Blackness" or the need to prevent or deal with slave revolts. Why did the writers of the Articles of Confederation go through the trouble of listing out the various threats that necessitated a militia but leave out "anti-Blackness" and slave revolts? There can be only one parsimonious explanation: the framers of the Articles of Confederation saw invasions from enemies, attacks from American Indians, and piracy as real threats to the fledgling states and felt it necessary to specifically mention these potential threats and lay the groundwork for how the individual states and the confederacy as a whole would respond.
-----
It is here that we find such Founding Fathers as James Madison stating during the Constitutional Convention, "A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty" (hat tip to The Avalon Project at Yale Law School's Lillian Goldman Law Library). In the Annals of Congress, we find Elbridge Gerry asserting without challenge that the purpose of the declaration of rights (Bill of Rights) is "to secure the people against the mal-administration of Government" and that the purpose and use of the militia "is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty." These concerns about the threats posed by a large standing army (not by potential slave revolts) were echoed by other Federalists and Anti-Federalists throughout the ratification process and throughout the debates in Congress, when the first ten amendments were proposed. Indeed, in his first annual message as president in 1801, Thomas Jefferson summed up the prevailing view of the role of the militia best when he said (again, hat tip to The Avalon Project at Yale Law School's Lillian Goldman Law Library):

Uncertain as we must ever be of the particular point in our circumference where an enemy may choose to invade us, the only force which can be ready at every point and competent to oppose them, is the body of neighboring citizens as formed into a militia. On these, collected from the parts most convenient, in numbers proportioned to the invading foe, it is best to rely, not only to meet the first attack, but if it threatens to be permanent, to maintain a defence until regulars may be engaged to relieve them.

It is not necessary to rely solely on history to disprove the "racist Second Amendment" argument. A rational look at the Second Amendment and subsequent actions taken by Congress proves that the Second Amendment had nothing to do with race. For instance, if it were true that the Second Amendment was meant to be a tool to deal with potential slave revolts, then the adoption of the Thirteenth Amendment, which abolished slavery in 1865, would have made the Second Amendment moot. That Congress did not repeal the Second Amendment when the Thirteenth Amendment was adopted, nor has repealed it since that time, only strengthens the argument that the Second Amendment was not and is not intended to deal with potential slave revolts. Furthermore, that slavery was not just limited to black people of African descent, but extended to American Indians and even black people enslaving people of their own race, proves that even if was a tool to deal with potential slave revolts, it was far from being "anti-Black" or even racist. These inconvenient truths do not fit the narrative.
----
As far as the Second Amendment is concerned, the truth is quite discernible: far from being a tool to disenfranchise or oppress, the Second Amendment is and always has been a mechanism for safeguarding, securing, and protecting the people from foreign threats and an overreaching government. Indeed, the Second Amendment is all about preventing the shackles of slavery from ever being applied to the people, and should that unlucky day come, it is all about shattering those shackles. I
The Second Amendment: Not Racist, but Definitely Pro-Freedom



Spooner used the Second Amendment to argue that slavery was unconstitutional. Since a slave is a person who is (or can be) forbidden to possess arms, and the Second Amendment guarantees that all persons can possess arms, no person in the United States can be a slave.
------
The right of a man "to keep and bear arms," is a right palpably inconsistent with the idea of his being a slave. Yet the right is secured as effectually to those whom the States presume to call slaves, as to any whom the States condescend to acknowledge free.
==============

For 20 years now, a well-meaning law professor has been peddling the fiction that the Second Amendment – guaranteeing the right of Americans to keep and bear arms – was adopted to protect slavery. He first proposed this in a 1998 law review article and trotted it out again in a recent New York Times op-ed.

The trouble is: It’s untrue. Not a single one of America’s founders is known to have suggested such a purpose.

When the Redcoats came to disarm the colonists, the American patriots relied on the right to “have arms for their Defense,” as stated in the English Declaration of Rights of 1689.

In 1776, Pennsylvania declared: “That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves, and the state.” Vermont copied that language in its constitution, which explicitly abolished slavery. Massachusetts and North Carolina adopted their own versions.

When the states debated adoption of the Constitution without a bill of rights in 1787-88, Samuel Adams proposed the right to bear arms in Massachusetts’s ratification convention. The Dissent of the Minority did so in Pennsylvania, and the entire New Hampshire convention demanded recognition of the right.

There was no connection to slavery in any of these historical antecedents.

In his articles, Professor Carl T. Bogus of Roger Williams University speculates that George Mason’s and Patrick Henry’s demands in the Virginia ratification convention could have been motivated to protect slavery. Not so.

Mason recalled that “when the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised … to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”

And Patrick Henry implored: “The great object is, that every man be armed.” The ensuing debate concerned defense against tyranny and invasion – not slavery.

New York, North Carolina and Rhode Island joined in the demand for what became the Second Amendment. The right to bear arms had universal support.

It was the denial of the right of all “the people” to bear arms that supported slavery.

The Supreme Court’s notorious Dred Scott decision held that African-Americans could not be regarded as citizens, for otherwise they could hold political meetings and “keep and carry arms wherever they went.” Frederick Douglass advocated Second Amendment rights for all, and Sojourner Truth carried guns in helping slaves to escape.
The Second Amendment had nothing to do with slavery

 

[2aguy]

Well it was the Crackers who insisted upon it. Virginian Crackers to be precise.

Hmmmm....Do the people of Pennsylvania and Vermont = crackers?

In 1776, Pennsylvania declared: “That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves, and the state.” Vermont copied that language in its constitution, which explicitly abolished slavery. Massachusetts and North Carolina adopted their own versions.

 

[2aguy]

The Russians were always jealous that Americans believed their own propaganda. I see nothing has changed.
'Individual rights' !!!
What a laugh.

Slavery was brought to the new World by the Europeans and Africans.....the United States went to war to end the practice.......