3/5 Of A Human Being

Unkotare

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2011
Messages
93,408
Reaction score
9,381
Points
2,030
Remember why Cliff from Cheers was funny?

:lol: ^^^^^^^^^
 
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
100,299
Reaction score
34,324
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?

Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.



"Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”

Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.

In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."






Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:

"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"




Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."


Just came upon this quote from David Baldacci's novel, 'The Guilty,' indicating what would have been the result without the 3/5 compromise:


"Blacks had constituted the majority of the population [of Mississippi] until the commencement of two mass migrations, first north and then west over the course of sixty years starting in 1910. The exodus was largely to get away from the oppressive effects of Jim Crow laws....."
page 33.
 

The2ndAmendment

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2013
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
2,433
Points
245
Location
In a dependant and enslaved country.
You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?

Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.



"Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”

Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.

In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."






Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:

"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"




Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."

The actual number was chosen mathematically as well.

Had their been less whites in the souths, it would have been 4/5, had their been more whites in the south it would have been 2/5.
 

justinacolmena

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2017
Messages
2,922
Reaction score
642
Points
140
Location
alaska, usa
to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?

Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress
It was the slave owners, after all, who were entitled to 3/5 the vote of a free man for every male slave they owned.

Women didn't vote back then of course. A horse drawn carriage ride to the polls was impractical to arrange for everybody, and besides the women had to stay home with a sidearm or derringer or a shotgun at the ready if their husbands were going to have any property at all to come back to after voting down the usual host of local levies and property taxes.
 
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
100,299
Reaction score
34,324
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
For historical perspective.....

There is no society in which slavery didn't exist.

North African Muslims enslaved millions of white folks.....hence the Barbary War.

The only question that is pertinent is, which societies have banned slavery.


Slavery ended first....FIRST...in America.

"July 2, 1777. In response to abolitionists' calls across the colonies to end slavery, Vermont became the first colony to ban it outright. Not only did Vermont's legislature agree to abolish slavery entirely, it also moved to provide full voting rights for African American males."
nmaahc.si.edu

Vermont 1777: Early Steps Against Slavery
Long before Vermont became our 14th state, its people were known for their independence. They were not excited about joining the new United States; nor did they want to remain a part of the British crown. They liked being independent and made that clear to the other colonies on more than one...
nmaahc.si.edu
nmaahc.si.edu



That's thirty years before England abolished slavery.
 

bigrebnc1775

][][][% NC Sheepdog
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
78,689
Reaction score
9,625
Points
2,070
Location
Kannapolis, N.C.
Here is actual history not just right wing fantasy. Proof right wingers are true witness bearing challenged and are willing to project onto others what they themselves are doing.
it's the history of your democrat party lol
lol. Still appealing to ignorance not from ignorance? The South were democrats back then and is why they rebelled Against a Republican and his republican administration.
And your point after all they are rebelling now
The unorganized militia is worthless to the security of our free States.

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
Here is actual history not just right wing fantasy. Proof right wingers are true witness bearing challenged and are willing to project onto others what they themselves are doing.
it's the history of your democrat party lol
lol. Still appealing to ignorance not from ignorance? The South were democrats back then and is why they rebelled Against a Republican and his republican administration.
And your point after all they are rebelling now
The unorganized militia is worthless to the security of our free States.

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
the unorganized exist to make sure we have a free state
lol. No, they don't. We have a First Amendment for that. Gun lovers only allege to care about the Second Amendment to love their guns better not because they actually Care about the security of our free States.
WOW SMH no we have the first amendment because of the second amendment
Not at all. Our Second Amendment is about the security of our free States; something the unorganized militia is worthless for.
wow how do you keep your first amendment right when it's the government with it's militia that has taken it away? You are fucking clueless
By not appealing to as much ignorance as right wingers. The Organized militia has literal recourse to our Second Amendment. The unorganized militia is worthless to the security of our free States and prove it by all the gun control laws we have for Individuals of the People who comprise the unorganized militia. It is merely your right wing bigotry that causes you to be clueless and Causeless and hypocritical enough to project your fantastical line of reasoning on to others.
Damn you're ignorant
the organized militia which is the national guard is under the control of the government
The unorganized militia is not
lol. Our Second Amendment is about the security of our free States, it says so in the first clause. Individuals of the People are subject to the Police Power of a State. The unorganized militia is worthless to the security of our free State. The riots are Proof of why we need gun control laws for Individuals.
the organized milita state guard dictates you no longer have a free state and are under their rule
The riots are proof of why we need gun control??????? how do you stop rioters from harming you when the police are told to stand down?
Tell you what you do go live in one of those leftists controlled blue cities
FYI gun control violates second amendment rights to a free state
Our Second Amendment declares otherwise. There is no reason to believe anyone on the right wing claiming the opposite. We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems. It is a simple ratio of organized militia to unorganized militia. If our State legislators were doing their job, we should have no riots only peaceful protests and petitions for redress of grievances because our First Amendment is First not Second.

A free State is not about Individual Liberty to bear Arms but about what is necessary to achieve the goal and objective to good Order, security. Our First Amendment and State equivalents are what a free State is about. Order not Chaos.

That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
you're ignornt
You are simply clueless and Causeless.
says the idiot that doesn't know what a nanny state is and didn't know slaves and blacks before 1866 had no citizenship rights.
You are simply too dumb to understand; I have to work hard to try to dumb it down for the Right Wing.

Anyone born in the US after 1808 was supposed to be a Citizen. Why do you believe the North was gradually emancipating their slave population?
Dumbass show me the 1808 law that gave anyone born in the united states citizenship
it wasn't until the civil rights act of 1866 that gave slaves and free blacks citizenship rights.
BUT AGAIN SHOW THAT 1808 LAW THAT GAVE BLACKS AND SLAVES CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS.
 

bigrebnc1775

][][][% NC Sheepdog
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
78,689
Reaction score
9,625
Points
2,070
Location
Kannapolis, N.C.
" Choosing Alternative Perspectives "

* Unconstrained By Uncertainties *


Don't believe in our Declaration of Independence?
The statements in the declaration of independence represent perspectives of the time .

The concepts of relativism and existentialism provision that nothing is assured , but anything is possible , so individuals are not resigned to being deprived of liberty by anyone or anything , even though some believe to be entitled to deprive others of liberty as a consequence .

Since then, it has become a well-known statement on human rights, particularly its second sentence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
You're trying to have a highly educated discussion with someone who thinks slaves had citizenship rights before the civil rights act of 1866
Natural born Persons in the US are citizens.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

All persons born in the US after 1808 were citizens by birth just like any other Person.
No they weren't you keep repeating this stupid shit without showing any proof. You keep referencing the year 1808 that year referencing to the electoral college
the Constitution became law of the land in 1789 the 1790 census only white males had rights
Slaves did not have citizenship rights until 1866
Any Person born in the US after 1808 is a US citizen. If one Person can be, any Person can be.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Our federal Constitution is our supreme law of the land not federal laws enacted by Congress or State legislators.
that is a lie slaves born in America and free blacks did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
THE CONSTITUTION WASN'T AMENDED UNTIL THE 13TH AMENDMENT WAS ADDED
SO YOUR BULLSHIT ABOUT 1808 JUST DOESN'T EXIST
Only Because of immoral right wingers being unable to faithfully execute our supreme law of the land. You are simply appealing to ignorance of the law, like usual. Any illegal can do that; but right wingers are immoral enough to only complain about the less fortunate under our form of Capitalism.
I thought you leftists always claimed the founders were liberals? Make up your mind sport.
Our Founding Fathers liberal enough to create our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Nothing about slavery in our federal Constitution. Our original Constitution and Bill of Rights are both gender and race neutral from Inception.
Yet according to you modern-day leftists they were racist slave owners Seems you leftists long for the good old days of owning slaves to push your authoritarian agenda
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
58,627
Reaction score
1,987
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
" Legitimate Terms And Rules To Be Enforced "

* Justified And Valid *

You are wrong, no matter how many times you repeat this nonsense.
A subject of a title in a legal immigration system includes an acceptance of jurisdiction for the sojourner by the visiting country , else the sojourner remains a subject of jurisdiction from the country of national origin .

The us v wka court was correct in its decision but failed to expound that wong became a subject of title in us legal immigration system upon agreement with china to allow wong entrance to remain in the us unless or until returning to china .

The notion of non jurisdiction for diplomats is dependent upon the agreement between countries where the sojourner might include immunity from prosecution , or specify that children born of the sojourner be given jus sanguinin citizenship , which the us should stipulate in its visa program to include all legal migrants as well .

The reasoning for awarding children jus sanguinin citizenship from the country of origin for non jurisdiction sojourners and for jurisdiction sojourners as well is that there is a fundamental difference between negative liberties of protection arising from either negative or positive wrights , versus positive liberties of endowment arising from positive wrights , where an extension of citizenship is an endowment , as is social welfare , and not a protection .

The us makes significant efforts to curb birth tourism by denying visibly pregnant women entry into the us , and us legal immigration stipulates and challenges that a legal migrant , a jurisdiction sojourner , is not visiting with an intended purpose of having a child , because us citizens are obligated and privileged through its legal immigration system to determine the competence and fitness of those admitted as citizens .

Such fates are not to be determined by non jurisdiction sojourners practicing vagrancy to usurp us solvency .

The court's dissenters argued that being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States meant not being subject to any foreign power[9]—that is, not being claimed as a citizen by another country via jus sanguinis (inheriting citizenship from a parent)—an interpretation which, in the minority's view, would have excluded "the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country".[10]

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), was a landmark decision[4] of the US Supreme Court ruling that "a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China",[5] automatically became a U.S. citizen at birth.[6]
Subject to extradition if the Emperor wanted them back? Did the parents have any problems becoming naturalized citizens of the US?
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
58,627
Reaction score
1,987
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?

Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.



"Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”

Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.

In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."






Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:

"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"




Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."


Just came upon this quote from David Baldacci's novel, 'The Guilty,' indicating what would have been the result without the 3/5 compromise:


"Blacks had constituted the majority of the population [of Mississippi] until the commencement of two mass migrations, first north and then west over the course of sixty years starting in 1910. The exodus was largely to get away from the oppressive effects of Jim Crow laws....."
page 33.
Jim Crow laws were unConstitutional. Right wingers simply don't care about natural rights or the Law, unlike what they allege in abortion or socialism threads.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
58,627
Reaction score
1,987
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
For historical perspective.....

There is no society in which slavery didn't exist.

North African Muslims enslaved millions of white folks.....hence the Barbary War.

The only question that is pertinent is, which societies have banned slavery.


Slavery ended first....FIRST...in America.

"July 2, 1777. In response to abolitionists' calls across the colonies to end slavery, Vermont became the first colony to ban it outright. Not only did Vermont's legislature agree to abolish slavery entirely, it also moved to provide full voting rights for African American males."
nmaahc.si.edu

Vermont 1777: Early Steps Against Slavery
Long before Vermont became our 14th state, its people were known for their independence. They were not excited about joining the new United States; nor did they want to remain a part of the British crown. They liked being independent and made that clear to the other colonies on more than one...
nmaahc.si.edu
nmaahc.si.edu



That's thirty years before England abolished slavery.
How many societies had our Declaration of Independence and our federal Constitution. Bearing false witness to both is a sin (unto God).
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
58,627
Reaction score
1,987
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
Here is actual history not just right wing fantasy. Proof right wingers are true witness bearing challenged and are willing to project onto others what they themselves are doing.
it's the history of your democrat party lol
lol. Still appealing to ignorance not from ignorance? The South were democrats back then and is why they rebelled Against a Republican and his republican administration.
And your point after all they are rebelling now
The unorganized militia is worthless to the security of our free States.

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
Here is actual history not just right wing fantasy. Proof right wingers are true witness bearing challenged and are willing to project onto others what they themselves are doing.
it's the history of your democrat party lol
lol. Still appealing to ignorance not from ignorance? The South were democrats back then and is why they rebelled Against a Republican and his republican administration.
And your point after all they are rebelling now
The unorganized militia is worthless to the security of our free States.

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
the unorganized exist to make sure we have a free state
lol. No, they don't. We have a First Amendment for that. Gun lovers only allege to care about the Second Amendment to love their guns better not because they actually Care about the security of our free States.
WOW SMH no we have the first amendment because of the second amendment
Not at all. Our Second Amendment is about the security of our free States; something the unorganized militia is worthless for.
wow how do you keep your first amendment right when it's the government with it's militia that has taken it away? You are fucking clueless
By not appealing to as much ignorance as right wingers. The Organized militia has literal recourse to our Second Amendment. The unorganized militia is worthless to the security of our free States and prove it by all the gun control laws we have for Individuals of the People who comprise the unorganized militia. It is merely your right wing bigotry that causes you to be clueless and Causeless and hypocritical enough to project your fantastical line of reasoning on to others.
Damn you're ignorant
the organized militia which is the national guard is under the control of the government
The unorganized militia is not
lol. Our Second Amendment is about the security of our free States, it says so in the first clause. Individuals of the People are subject to the Police Power of a State. The unorganized militia is worthless to the security of our free State. The riots are Proof of why we need gun control laws for Individuals.
the organized milita state guard dictates you no longer have a free state and are under their rule
The riots are proof of why we need gun control??????? how do you stop rioters from harming you when the police are told to stand down?
Tell you what you do go live in one of those leftists controlled blue cities
FYI gun control violates second amendment rights to a free state
Our Second Amendment declares otherwise. There is no reason to believe anyone on the right wing claiming the opposite. We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems. It is a simple ratio of organized militia to unorganized militia. If our State legislators were doing their job, we should have no riots only peaceful protests and petitions for redress of grievances because our First Amendment is First not Second.

A free State is not about Individual Liberty to bear Arms but about what is necessary to achieve the goal and objective to good Order, security. Our First Amendment and State equivalents are what a free State is about. Order not Chaos.

That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
you're ignornt
You are simply clueless and Causeless.
says the idiot that doesn't know what a nanny state is and didn't know slaves and blacks before 1866 had no citizenship rights.
You are simply too dumb to understand; I have to work hard to try to dumb it down for the Right Wing.

Anyone born in the US after 1808 was supposed to be a Citizen. Why do you believe the North was gradually emancipating their slave population?
Dumbass show me the 1808 law that gave anyone born in the united states citizenship
it wasn't until the civil rights act of 1866 that gave slaves and free blacks citizenship rights.
BUT AGAIN SHOW THAT 1808 LAW THAT GAVE BLACKS AND SLAVES CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS.
Our federal Constitution is our supreme law of the land. Only the right wing, never gets it. Anyone born in the US after 1808 should have automatically been a US citizen by natural born birth. Any (white) male born in the US was a citizen of both their State and the Union.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
58,627
Reaction score
1,987
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
" Choosing Alternative Perspectives "

* Unconstrained By Uncertainties *


Don't believe in our Declaration of Independence?
The statements in the declaration of independence represent perspectives of the time .

The concepts of relativism and existentialism provision that nothing is assured , but anything is possible , so individuals are not resigned to being deprived of liberty by anyone or anything , even though some believe to be entitled to deprive others of liberty as a consequence .

Since then, it has become a well-known statement on human rights, particularly its second sentence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
You're trying to have a highly educated discussion with someone who thinks slaves had citizenship rights before the civil rights act of 1866
Natural born Persons in the US are citizens.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

All persons born in the US after 1808 were citizens by birth just like any other Person.
No they weren't you keep repeating this stupid shit without showing any proof. You keep referencing the year 1808 that year referencing to the electoral college
the Constitution became law of the land in 1789 the 1790 census only white males had rights
Slaves did not have citizenship rights until 1866
Any Person born in the US after 1808 is a US citizen. If one Person can be, any Person can be.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Our federal Constitution is our supreme law of the land not federal laws enacted by Congress or State legislators.
that is a lie slaves born in America and free blacks did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
THE CONSTITUTION WASN'T AMENDED UNTIL THE 13TH AMENDMENT WAS ADDED
SO YOUR BULLSHIT ABOUT 1808 JUST DOESN'T EXIST
Only Because of immoral right wingers being unable to faithfully execute our supreme law of the land. You are simply appealing to ignorance of the law, like usual. Any illegal can do that; but right wingers are immoral enough to only complain about the less fortunate under our form of Capitalism.
I thought you leftists always claimed the founders were liberals? Make up your mind sport.
Our Founding Fathers liberal enough to create our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Nothing about slavery in our federal Constitution. Our original Constitution and Bill of Rights are both gender and race neutral from Inception.
Yet according to you modern-day leftists they were racist slave owners Seems you leftists long for the good old days of owning slaves to push your authoritarian agenda
Only in right wing fantasy. The left is for promoting the general welfare not the general warfare, unlike the right wing.
 

bigrebnc1775

][][][% NC Sheepdog
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
78,689
Reaction score
9,625
Points
2,070
Location
Kannapolis, N.C.
" Choosing Alternative Perspectives "

* Unconstrained By Uncertainties *


Don't believe in our Declaration of Independence?
The statements in the declaration of independence represent perspectives of the time .

The concepts of relativism and existentialism provision that nothing is assured , but anything is possible , so individuals are not resigned to being deprived of liberty by anyone or anything , even though some believe to be entitled to deprive others of liberty as a consequence .

Since then, it has become a well-known statement on human rights, particularly its second sentence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
You're trying to have a highly educated discussion with someone who thinks slaves had citizenship rights before the civil rights act of 1866
Natural born Persons in the US are citizens.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

All persons born in the US after 1808 were citizens by birth just like any other Person.
No they weren't you keep repeating this stupid shit without showing any proof. You keep referencing the year 1808 that year referencing to the electoral college
the Constitution became law of the land in 1789 the 1790 census only white males had rights
Slaves did not have citizenship rights until 1866
Any Person born in the US after 1808 is a US citizen. If one Person can be, any Person can be.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Our federal Constitution is our supreme law of the land not federal laws enacted by Congress or State legislators.
that is a lie slaves born in America and free blacks did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
THE CONSTITUTION WASN'T AMENDED UNTIL THE 13TH AMENDMENT WAS ADDED
SO YOUR BULLSHIT ABOUT 1808 JUST DOESN'T EXIST
Only Because of immoral right wingers being unable to faithfully execute our supreme law of the land. You are simply appealing to ignorance of the law, like usual. Any illegal can do that; but right wingers are immoral enough to only complain about the less fortunate under our form of Capitalism.
I thought you leftists always claimed the founders were liberals? Make up your mind sport.
Our Founding Fathers liberal enough to create our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Nothing about slavery in our federal Constitution. Our original Constitution and Bill of Rights are both gender and race neutral from Inception.
Yet according to you modern-day leftists they were racist slave owners Seems you leftists long for the good old days of owning slaves to push your authoritarian agenda
Only in right wing fantasy. The left is for promoting the general welfare not the general warfare, unlike the right wing.
The only thing leftists are promoting is general division
 

bigrebnc1775

][][][% NC Sheepdog
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
78,689
Reaction score
9,625
Points
2,070
Location
Kannapolis, N.C.
Here is actual history not just right wing fantasy. Proof right wingers are true witness bearing challenged and are willing to project onto others what they themselves are doing.
it's the history of your democrat party lol
lol. Still appealing to ignorance not from ignorance? The South were democrats back then and is why they rebelled Against a Republican and his republican administration.
And your point after all they are rebelling now
The unorganized militia is worthless to the security of our free States.

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
Here is actual history not just right wing fantasy. Proof right wingers are true witness bearing challenged and are willing to project onto others what they themselves are doing.
it's the history of your democrat party lol
lol. Still appealing to ignorance not from ignorance? The South were democrats back then and is why they rebelled Against a Republican and his republican administration.
And your point after all they are rebelling now
The unorganized militia is worthless to the security of our free States.

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
the unorganized exist to make sure we have a free state
lol. No, they don't. We have a First Amendment for that. Gun lovers only allege to care about the Second Amendment to love their guns better not because they actually Care about the security of our free States.
WOW SMH no we have the first amendment because of the second amendment
Not at all. Our Second Amendment is about the security of our free States; something the unorganized militia is worthless for.
wow how do you keep your first amendment right when it's the government with it's militia that has taken it away? You are fucking clueless
By not appealing to as much ignorance as right wingers. The Organized militia has literal recourse to our Second Amendment. The unorganized militia is worthless to the security of our free States and prove it by all the gun control laws we have for Individuals of the People who comprise the unorganized militia. It is merely your right wing bigotry that causes you to be clueless and Causeless and hypocritical enough to project your fantastical line of reasoning on to others.
Damn you're ignorant
the organized militia which is the national guard is under the control of the government
The unorganized militia is not
lol. Our Second Amendment is about the security of our free States, it says so in the first clause. Individuals of the People are subject to the Police Power of a State. The unorganized militia is worthless to the security of our free State. The riots are Proof of why we need gun control laws for Individuals.
the organized milita state guard dictates you no longer have a free state and are under their rule
The riots are proof of why we need gun control??????? how do you stop rioters from harming you when the police are told to stand down?
Tell you what you do go live in one of those leftists controlled blue cities
FYI gun control violates second amendment rights to a free state
Our Second Amendment declares otherwise. There is no reason to believe anyone on the right wing claiming the opposite. We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems. It is a simple ratio of organized militia to unorganized militia. If our State legislators were doing their job, we should have no riots only peaceful protests and petitions for redress of grievances because our First Amendment is First not Second.

A free State is not about Individual Liberty to bear Arms but about what is necessary to achieve the goal and objective to good Order, security. Our First Amendment and State equivalents are what a free State is about. Order not Chaos.

That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
you're ignornt
You are simply clueless and Causeless.
says the idiot that doesn't know what a nanny state is and didn't know slaves and blacks before 1866 had no citizenship rights.
You are simply too dumb to understand; I have to work hard to try to dumb it down for the Right Wing.

Anyone born in the US after 1808 was supposed to be a Citizen. Why do you believe the North was gradually emancipating their slave population?
Dumbass show me the 1808 law that gave anyone born in the united states citizenship
it wasn't until the civil rights act of 1866 that gave slaves and free blacks citizenship rights.
BUT AGAIN SHOW THAT 1808 LAW THAT GAVE BLACKS AND SLAVES CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS.
Our federal Constitution is our supreme law of the land. Only the right wing, never gets it. Anyone born in the US after 1808 should have automatically been a US citizen by natural born birth. Any (white) male born in the US was a citizen of both their State and the Union.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
I asked you what law created in 1808 that gave slaves and freed blacks citizenship rights? Still waiting
 

bigrebnc1775

][][][% NC Sheepdog
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
78,689
Reaction score
9,625
Points
2,070
Location
Kannapolis, N.C.
For historical perspective.....

There is no society in which slavery didn't exist.

North African Muslims enslaved millions of white folks.....hence the Barbary War.

The only question that is pertinent is, which societies have banned slavery.


Slavery ended first....FIRST...in America.

"July 2, 1777. In response to abolitionists' calls across the colonies to end slavery, Vermont became the first colony to ban it outright. Not only did Vermont's legislature agree to abolish slavery entirely, it also moved to provide full voting rights for African American males."
nmaahc.si.edu

Vermont 1777: Early Steps Against Slavery
Long before Vermont became our 14th state, its people were known for their independence. They were not excited about joining the new United States; nor did they want to remain a part of the British crown. They liked being independent and made that clear to the other colonies on more than one...
nmaahc.si.edu
nmaahc.si.edu



That's thirty years before England abolished slavery.
How many societies had our Declaration of Independence and our federal Constitution. Bearing false witness to both is a sin (unto God).
yes maybe you should consider your lies Ms 1808 liar
 

bigrebnc1775

][][][% NC Sheepdog
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
78,689
Reaction score
9,625
Points
2,070
Location
Kannapolis, N.C.
You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?

Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.



"Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”

Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.

In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."






Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:

"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"




Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."


Just came upon this quote from David Baldacci's novel, 'The Guilty,' indicating what would have been the result without the 3/5 compromise:


"Blacks had constituted the majority of the population [of Mississippi] until the commencement of two mass migrations, first north and then west over the course of sixty years starting in 1910. The exodus was largely to get away from the oppressive effects of Jim Crow laws....."
page 33.
Jim Crow laws were unConstitutional. Right wingers simply don't care about natural rights or the Law, unlike what they allege in abortion or socialism threads.
no, they weren't unconstitutional when they were written you right wingers are delusional
 
Last edited:
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
100,299
Reaction score
34,324
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?

Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.



"Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”

Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.

In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."






Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:

"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"




Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."


Just came upon this quote from David Baldacci's novel, 'The Guilty,' indicating what would have been the result without the 3/5 compromise:


"Blacks had constituted the majority of the population [of Mississippi] until the commencement of two mass migrations, first north and then west over the course of sixty years starting in 1910. The exodus was largely to get away from the oppressive effects of Jim Crow laws....."
page 33.
Jim Crow laws were unConstitutional. Right wingers simply don't care about natural rights or the Law, unlike what they allege in abortion or socialism threads.
no they were unconstitutional when they were written you right wingers are delusional

Perhaps this would be an appropriate time to point out that Hitler's Nazis proudly proclaimed that they based their laws on the Democrat Jim Crow laws.


  • 1.“…history of laws against miscegenation—interracial marriage or procreation—in the United States.

    Under the influence of Darwinism, racial science and an associated eugenics movement emerged in the late nineteenth century, grew with the Progressive movement, peaked in the 1920s, and disappeared during World War II. (Its enthusiastic embrace by Hitler did not help it…” The Race Against Race

    “The Germanic inhabitant of the American continent, who has remained racially pure and unmixed, rose to be master of the continent; he will remain the master as long as he does not fall a victim to defilement of the blood.”
    Adolph Hitler
    Untitled Document

  • 2. “At Nuremberg, the Nazis sought to preserve Nordic racial purity by outlawing racial intermarriage with Jews in much the same manner that Democratic anti-miscegenation laws outlawed racial intermarriage with blacks.” Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats



    3. Guess were Adolph got the idea for sterilization of ‘undesireables’???
  • “…Hitler learned from progressive sterilization laws that had been enacted in America through the influence of activists like Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood. “I have studied with great interest the laws of several American states concerning prevention of reproduction by people whose progeny would in all probability be of no value or be injurious to the racial stock.”
Hitler’s views—which closely parallel Sanger’s—provided the basis for the Nazi sterilization laws of 1933 which began by targeting “imbeciles” and the mentally retarded, and later expanded to cover Jews, gypsies, and other social undesirables.” Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats

  • Hitler wrote to the president of the American Eugenics Society to ask for a copy of his “The Case for Sterilization.”
    (Margaret Sanger and Sterilization)


  • 4. German race science stood on American progressive’s shoulders.
  • The Nazi Nuremberg Laws were taken nearly wholly from the Jim Crow Laws of the Democrat controlled South.

    In “Hitler's American Model: The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law ,” by James Whitman, he shows how the Nazis took the Democrats’ Jim Crow Laws, simply changed the word ‘black’ and inserted the word ‘Jew.’

“Let’s remember that every segregation law in the South was passed by a Democratic legislature, signed by a Democratic governor, and enforced by Democratic officials. The Nuremberg team carefully studied these laws that were mainly aimed at blacks and used them to formulate their own racist legislation mainly aimed at Jews.”


  • 5. From the LATimes:
  • “At a crucial 1934 planning meeting for the Nuremberg system, the Minister of Justice presented a memorandum on American law. According to a transcript, he led a detailed discussion of miscegenation statutes from all over the United States. Moreover it is clear that the most radical Nazis were the most eager advocates of American practices. Roland Freisler, who would become president of the Nazi People's Court, declared that American jurisprudence "would suit us perfectly."
    When the Nazis wrote the Nuremberg laws, they looked to racist American statutes
 

bigrebnc1775

][][][% NC Sheepdog
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
78,689
Reaction score
9,625
Points
2,070
Location
Kannapolis, N.C.
You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?

Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.



"Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”

Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.

In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."






Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:

"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"




Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."


Just came upon this quote from David Baldacci's novel, 'The Guilty,' indicating what would have been the result without the 3/5 compromise:


"Blacks had constituted the majority of the population [of Mississippi] until the commencement of two mass migrations, first north and then west over the course of sixty years starting in 1910. The exodus was largely to get away from the oppressive effects of Jim Crow laws....."
page 33.
Jim Crow laws were unConstitutional. Right wingers simply don't care about natural rights or the Law, unlike what they allege in abortion or socialism threads.
no they were unconstitutional when they were written you right wingers are delusional

Perhaps this would be an appropriate time to point out that Hitler's Nazis proudly proclaimed that they based their laws on the Democrat Jim Crow laws.


  • 1.“…history of laws against miscegenation—interracial marriage or procreation—in the United States.

    Under the influence of Darwinism, racial science and an associated eugenics movement emerged in the late nineteenth century, grew with the Progressive movement, peaked in the 1920s, and disappeared during World War II. (Its enthusiastic embrace by Hitler did not help it…” The Race Against Race

    “The Germanic inhabitant of the American continent, who has remained racially pure and unmixed, rose to be master of the continent; he will remain the master as long as he does not fall a victim to defilement of the blood.”
    Adolph Hitler
    Untitled Document

  • 2. “At Nuremberg, the Nazis sought to preserve Nordic racial purity by outlawing racial intermarriage with Jews in much the same manner that Democratic anti-miscegenation laws outlawed racial intermarriage with blacks.” Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats



    3. Guess were Adolph got the idea for sterilization of ‘undesireables’???
  • “…Hitler learned from progressive sterilization laws that had been enacted in America through the influence of activists like Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood. “I have studied with great interest the laws of several American states concerning prevention of reproduction by people whose progeny would in all probability be of no value or be injurious to the racial stock.”
Hitler’s views—which closely parallel Sanger’s—provided the basis for the Nazi sterilization laws of 1933 which began by targeting “imbeciles” and the mentally retarded, and later expanded to cover Jews, gypsies, and other social undesirables.” Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats

  • Hitler wrote to the president of the American Eugenics Society to ask for a copy of his “The Case for Sterilization.”
    (Margaret Sanger and Sterilization)


  • 4. German race science stood on American progressive’s shoulders.
  • The Nazi Nuremberg Laws were taken nearly wholly from the Jim Crow Laws of the Democrat controlled South.

    In “Hitler's American Model: The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law ,” by James Whitman, he shows how the Nazis took the Democrats’ Jim Crow Laws, simply changed the word ‘black’ and inserted the word ‘Jew.’
“Let’s remember that every segregation law in the South was passed by a Democratic legislature, signed by a Democratic governor, and enforced by Democratic officials. The Nuremberg team carefully studied these laws that were mainly aimed at blacks and used them to formulate their own racist legislation mainly aimed at Jews.”


  • 5. From the LATimes:
  • “At a crucial 1934 planning meeting for the Nuremberg system, the Minister of Justice presented a memorandum on American law. According to a transcript, he led a detailed discussion of miscegenation statutes from all over the United States. Moreover it is clear that the most radical Nazis were the most eager advocates of American practices. Roland Freisler, who would become president of the Nazi People's Court, declared that American jurisprudence "would suit us perfectly."
    When the Nazis wrote the Nuremberg laws, they looked to racist American statutes
Just correcting his wrong answer at the time Jim crow laws were constitutional not defending them
 
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
100,299
Reaction score
34,324
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?

Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.



"Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”

Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.

In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."






Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:

"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"




Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."


Just came upon this quote from David Baldacci's novel, 'The Guilty,' indicating what would have been the result without the 3/5 compromise:


"Blacks had constituted the majority of the population [of Mississippi] until the commencement of two mass migrations, first north and then west over the course of sixty years starting in 1910. The exodus was largely to get away from the oppressive effects of Jim Crow laws....."
page 33.
Jim Crow laws were unConstitutional. Right wingers simply don't care about natural rights or the Law, unlike what they allege in abortion or socialism threads.
no they were unconstitutional when they were written you right wingers are delusional

Perhaps this would be an appropriate time to point out that Hitler's Nazis proudly proclaimed that they based their laws on the Democrat Jim Crow laws.


  • 1.“…history of laws against miscegenation—interracial marriage or procreation—in the United States.

    Under the influence of Darwinism, racial science and an associated eugenics movement emerged in the late nineteenth century, grew with the Progressive movement, peaked in the 1920s, and disappeared during World War II. (Its enthusiastic embrace by Hitler did not help it…” The Race Against Race

    “The Germanic inhabitant of the American continent, who has remained racially pure and unmixed, rose to be master of the continent; he will remain the master as long as he does not fall a victim to defilement of the blood.”
    Adolph Hitler
    Untitled Document

  • 2. “At Nuremberg, the Nazis sought to preserve Nordic racial purity by outlawing racial intermarriage with Jews in much the same manner that Democratic anti-miscegenation laws outlawed racial intermarriage with blacks.” Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats



    3. Guess were Adolph got the idea for sterilization of ‘undesireables’???
  • “…Hitler learned from progressive sterilization laws that had been enacted in America through the influence of activists like Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood. “I have studied with great interest the laws of several American states concerning prevention of reproduction by people whose progeny would in all probability be of no value or be injurious to the racial stock.”
Hitler’s views—which closely parallel Sanger’s—provided the basis for the Nazi sterilization laws of 1933 which began by targeting “imbeciles” and the mentally retarded, and later expanded to cover Jews, gypsies, and other social undesirables.” Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats

  • Hitler wrote to the president of the American Eugenics Society to ask for a copy of his “The Case for Sterilization.”
    (Margaret Sanger and Sterilization)


  • 4. German race science stood on American progressive’s shoulders.
  • The Nazi Nuremberg Laws were taken nearly wholly from the Jim Crow Laws of the Democrat controlled South.

    In “Hitler's American Model: The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law ,” by James Whitman, he shows how the Nazis took the Democrats’ Jim Crow Laws, simply changed the word ‘black’ and inserted the word ‘Jew.’
“Let’s remember that every segregation law in the South was passed by a Democratic legislature, signed by a Democratic governor, and enforced by Democratic officials. The Nuremberg team carefully studied these laws that were mainly aimed at blacks and used them to formulate their own racist legislation mainly aimed at Jews.”


  • 5. From the LATimes:
  • “At a crucial 1934 planning meeting for the Nuremberg system, the Minister of Justice presented a memorandum on American law. According to a transcript, he led a detailed discussion of miscegenation statutes from all over the United States. Moreover it is clear that the most radical Nazis were the most eager advocates of American practices. Roland Freisler, who would become president of the Nazi People's Court, declared that American jurisprudence "would suit us perfectly."
    When the Nazis wrote the Nuremberg laws, they looked to racist American statutes
Just correcting his wrong answer at the time Jim crow laws were constitutional not defending them

I was simply pointing out that, like every totalitarian religion, the Nazis paid homage to the Democrat Party.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
58,627
Reaction score
1,987
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
Here is actual history not just right wing fantasy. Proof right wingers are true witness bearing challenged and are willing to project onto others what they themselves are doing.
it's the history of your democrat party lol
lol. Still appealing to ignorance not from ignorance? The South were democrats back then and is why they rebelled Against a Republican and his republican administration.
And your point after all they are rebelling now
The unorganized militia is worthless to the security of our free States.

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
Here is actual history not just right wing fantasy. Proof right wingers are true witness bearing challenged and are willing to project onto others what they themselves are doing.
it's the history of your democrat party lol
lol. Still appealing to ignorance not from ignorance? The South were democrats back then and is why they rebelled Against a Republican and his republican administration.
And your point after all they are rebelling now
The unorganized militia is worthless to the security of our free States.

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
the unorganized exist to make sure we have a free state
lol. No, they don't. We have a First Amendment for that. Gun lovers only allege to care about the Second Amendment to love their guns better not because they actually Care about the security of our free States.
WOW SMH no we have the first amendment because of the second amendment
Not at all. Our Second Amendment is about the security of our free States; something the unorganized militia is worthless for.
wow how do you keep your first amendment right when it's the government with it's militia that has taken it away? You are fucking clueless
By not appealing to as much ignorance as right wingers. The Organized militia has literal recourse to our Second Amendment. The unorganized militia is worthless to the security of our free States and prove it by all the gun control laws we have for Individuals of the People who comprise the unorganized militia. It is merely your right wing bigotry that causes you to be clueless and Causeless and hypocritical enough to project your fantastical line of reasoning on to others.
Damn you're ignorant
the organized militia which is the national guard is under the control of the government
The unorganized militia is not
lol. Our Second Amendment is about the security of our free States, it says so in the first clause. Individuals of the People are subject to the Police Power of a State. The unorganized militia is worthless to the security of our free State. The riots are Proof of why we need gun control laws for Individuals.
the organized milita state guard dictates you no longer have a free state and are under their rule
The riots are proof of why we need gun control??????? how do you stop rioters from harming you when the police are told to stand down?
Tell you what you do go live in one of those leftists controlled blue cities
FYI gun control violates second amendment rights to a free state
Our Second Amendment declares otherwise. There is no reason to believe anyone on the right wing claiming the opposite. We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems. It is a simple ratio of organized militia to unorganized militia. If our State legislators were doing their job, we should have no riots only peaceful protests and petitions for redress of grievances because our First Amendment is First not Second.

A free State is not about Individual Liberty to bear Arms but about what is necessary to achieve the goal and objective to good Order, security. Our First Amendment and State equivalents are what a free State is about. Order not Chaos.

That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
you're ignornt
You are simply clueless and Causeless.
says the idiot that doesn't know what a nanny state is and didn't know slaves and blacks before 1866 had no citizenship rights.
You are simply too dumb to understand; I have to work hard to try to dumb it down for the Right Wing.

Anyone born in the US after 1808 was supposed to be a Citizen. Why do you believe the North was gradually emancipating their slave population?
Dumbass show me the 1808 law that gave anyone born in the united states citizenship
it wasn't until the civil rights act of 1866 that gave slaves and free blacks citizenship rights.
BUT AGAIN SHOW THAT 1808 LAW THAT GAVE BLACKS AND SLAVES CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS.
Our federal Constitution is our supreme law of the land. Only the right wing, never gets it. Anyone born in the US after 1808 should have automatically been a US citizen by natural born birth. Any (white) male born in the US was a citizen of both their State and the Union.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
I asked you what law created in 1808 that gave slaves and freed blacks citizenship rights? Still waiting
What law gave anyone US citizenship after 1808? Simply being born in the US confers citizenship. Any exclusion was unConstitutional after 1808. Is that simple enough for you?
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top