Communist Indoctrination

[frigidweirdo]

The Democrats will deny it.

Oregon State to force ‘social justice’ training on freshmen - The College Fix

It's not Communist, it's just social cohesion. The fact that the right demand that people are cohesive, ie if you're gay shut the fuck up and don't make a noise, if you're a woman be quiet and get back in the kitchen, if you're black go back to the plantation etc etc, it seems rather hypocritical to denounce people from trying the same thing, just in a different way.

It's nuevo-Communista, the current rendition of the same old shit the Left has been selling here since the 1920s.

I have no idea what you're talking about here. "nuevo-Communista" is what?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

The Democrats will deny it.

Oregon State to force ‘social justice’ training on freshmen - The College Fix

It's not Communist, it's just social cohesion. The fact that the right demand that people are cohesive, ie if you're gay shut the fuck up and don't make a noise, if you're a woman be quiet and get back in the kitchen, if you're black go back to the plantation etc etc, it seems rather hypocritical to denounce people from trying the same thing, just in a different way.

It's nuevo-Communista, the current rendition of the same old shit the Left has been selling here since the 1920s.

I have no idea what you're talking about here. "nuevo-Communista" is what?

"New Communists" in Spanish.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The Second Amendment says you have the "right to bear arms", now the founding fathers said that "bear arms" was "render military service" and "militia duty", whereas the right say it mean "carry arms".

Documentation please.

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

The amount of times I've posted this, and still people ignore it. It's from the debates in the House (Senate debates were kept secret).

This was the clause they were looking at. If you look at the changes of the clause over the course of time they changed bear arms to "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

But it was also "but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person." (this from June 8th 1789)

Mr Gerry said: "They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."

and: "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head."

Mr Jackson wanted: ""No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""

Mr Sherman stated: "Mr. Sherman conceived it difficult to modify the clause and make it better. It is well known that those who are religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, are equally scrupulous of getting substitutes or paying an equivalent." and further on "besides, it would not do to alter it so as to exclude the whole of any sect, because there are men amongst the Quakers who will turn out, notwithstanding the religious principles of the society, and defend the cause of their country."

and Mr Vining: "Mr. Vining hoped the clause would be suffered to remain as it stood, because he saw no use in it if it was amended so as to compel a man to find a substitute, which, with respect to the Government, was the same as if the person himself turned out to fight."

They all saw "bear arms" as turning out to fight, militia duty, render military service and the like. Not one of them thought this had anything to do with carrying arms for self defense.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The Democrats will deny it.

Oregon State to force ‘social justice’ training on freshmen - The College Fix

It's not Communist, it's just social cohesion. The fact that the right demand that people are cohesive, ie if you're gay shut the fuck up and don't make a noise, if you're a woman be quiet and get back in the kitchen, if you're black go back to the plantation etc etc, it seems rather hypocritical to denounce people from trying the same thing, just in a different way.

It's nuevo-Communista, the current rendition of the same old shit the Left has been selling here since the 1920s.

I have no idea what you're talking about here. "nuevo-Communista" is what?

"New Communists" in Spanish.

I know what it means in Spanish. I just have no idea why you're using it and what you mean by this.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

The Second Amendment says you have the "right to bear arms", now the founding fathers said that "bear arms" was "render military service" and "militia duty", whereas the right say it mean "carry arms".

Documentation please.

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

The amount of times I've posted this, and still people ignore it. It's from the debates in the House (Senate debates were kept secret).

This was the clause they were looking at. If you look at the changes of the clause over the course of time they changed bear arms to "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

But it was also "but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person." (this from June 8th 1789)

Mr Gerry said: "They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."

and: "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head."

Mr Jackson wanted: ""No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""

Mr Sherman stated: "Mr. Sherman conceived it difficult to modify the clause and make it better. It is well known that those who are religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, are equally scrupulous of getting substitutes or paying an equivalent." and further on "besides, it would not do to alter it so as to exclude the whole of any sect, because there are men amongst the Quakers who will turn out, notwithstanding the religious principles of the society, and defend the cause of their country."

and Mr Vining: "Mr. Vining hoped the clause would be suffered to remain as it stood, because he saw no use in it if it was amended so as to compel a man to find a substitute, which, with respect to the Government, was the same as if the person himself turned out to fight."

They all saw "bear arms" as turning out to fight, militia duty, render military service and the like. Not one of them thought this had anything to do with carrying arms for self defense.

You can post all the early arguments you like. What counts is what was voted in.

 

[regent]

Can the government take away a criminals right to bear arms?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Can the government take away a criminals right to bear arms?

State governments? Yes.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

The Democrats will deny it.

Oregon State to force ‘social justice’ training on freshmen - The College Fix

It's not Communist, it's just social cohesion. The fact that the right demand that people are cohesive, ie if you're gay shut the fuck up and don't make a noise, if you're a woman be quiet and get back in the kitchen, if you're black go back to the plantation etc etc, it seems rather hypocritical to denounce people from trying the same thing, just in a different way.

It's nuevo-Communista, the current rendition of the same old shit the Left has been selling here since the 1920s.

I have no idea what you're talking about here. "nuevo-Communista" is what?

"New Communists" in Spanish.

I know what it means in Spanish. I just have no idea why you're using it and what you mean by this.

I cannot help that.

 

[Nosmo King]

I thought you rightwing kooks said reagan defeated communism, the 50's are over time to come out of the basement

Any boogeyman in a storm.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The Second Amendment says you have the "right to bear arms", now the founding fathers said that "bear arms" was "render military service" and "militia duty", whereas the right say it mean "carry arms".

Documentation please.

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

The amount of times I've posted this, and still people ignore it. It's from the debates in the House (Senate debates were kept secret).

This was the clause they were looking at. If you look at the changes of the clause over the course of time they changed bear arms to "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

But it was also "but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person." (this from June 8th 1789)

Mr Gerry said: "They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."

and: "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head."

Mr Jackson wanted: ""No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""

Mr Sherman stated: "Mr. Sherman conceived it difficult to modify the clause and make it better. It is well known that those who are religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, are equally scrupulous of getting substitutes or paying an equivalent." and further on "besides, it would not do to alter it so as to exclude the whole of any sect, because there are men amongst the Quakers who will turn out, notwithstanding the religious principles of the society, and defend the cause of their country."

and Mr Vining: "Mr. Vining hoped the clause would be suffered to remain as it stood, because he saw no use in it if it was amended so as to compel a man to find a substitute, which, with respect to the Government, was the same as if the person himself turned out to fight."

They all saw "bear arms" as turning out to fight, militia duty, render military service and the like. Not one of them thought this had anything to do with carrying arms for self defense.

You can post all the early arguments you like. What counts is what was voted in.

My point is that the term "bear arms" means "militia duty" or "render military service". What the founding fathers intended is clear. Those who want "bear arms" to mean "carry arms" will then suddenly decide to complete ignore what the Founding Fathers said.

Here's the thing, you won't find a single Founding Father saying that "bear arms" was carry arms. But you'll find loads who say it means something similar to what I've said, including George Washington.

 

[frigidweirdo]

It's not Communist, it's just social cohesion. The fact that the right demand that people are cohesive, ie if you're gay shut the fuck up and don't make a noise, if you're a woman be quiet and get back in the kitchen, if you're black go back to the plantation etc etc, it seems rather hypocritical to denounce people from trying the same thing, just in a different way.

It's nuevo-Communista, the current rendition of the same old shit the Left has been selling here since the 1920s.

I have no idea what you're talking about here. "nuevo-Communista" is what?

"New Communists" in Spanish.

I know what it means in Spanish. I just have no idea why you're using it and what you mean by this.

I cannot help that.

Do you know what the term "communicate" means? If you cannot communicate your ideas, then what's the point?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

The Second Amendment says you have the "right to bear arms", now the founding fathers said that "bear arms" was "render military service" and "militia duty", whereas the right say it mean "carry arms".

Documentation please.

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

The amount of times I've posted this, and still people ignore it. It's from the debates in the House (Senate debates were kept secret).

This was the clause they were looking at. If you look at the changes of the clause over the course of time they changed bear arms to "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

But it was also "but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person." (this from June 8th 1789)

Mr Gerry said: "They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."

and: "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head."

Mr Jackson wanted: ""No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""

Mr Sherman stated: "Mr. Sherman conceived it difficult to modify the clause and make it better. It is well known that those who are religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, are equally scrupulous of getting substitutes or paying an equivalent." and further on "besides, it would not do to alter it so as to exclude the whole of any sect, because there are men amongst the Quakers who will turn out, notwithstanding the religious principles of the society, and defend the cause of their country."

and Mr Vining: "Mr. Vining hoped the clause would be suffered to remain as it stood, because he saw no use in it if it was amended so as to compel a man to find a substitute, which, with respect to the Government, was the same as if the person himself turned out to fight."

They all saw "bear arms" as turning out to fight, militia duty, render military service and the like. Not one of them thought this had anything to do with carrying arms for self defense.

You can post all the early arguments you like. What counts is what was voted in.

My point is that the term "bear arms" means "militia duty" or "render military service". What the founding fathers intended is clear. Those who want "bear arms" to mean "carry arms" will then suddenly decide to complete ignore what the Founding Fathers said.

Here's the thing, you won't find a single Founding Father saying that "bear arms" was carry arms. But you'll find loads who say it means something similar to what I've said, including George Washington.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

It's nuevo-Communista, the current rendition of the same old shit the Left has been selling here since the 1920s.

I have no idea what you're talking about here. "nuevo-Communista" is what?

"New Communists" in Spanish.

I know what it means in Spanish. I just have no idea why you're using it and what you mean by this.

I cannot help that.

Do you know what the term "communicate" means? If you cannot communicate your ideas, then what's the point?

I could not have been more clear.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The Second Amendment says you have the "right to bear arms", now the founding fathers said that "bear arms" was "render military service" and "militia duty", whereas the right say it mean "carry arms".

Documentation please.

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

The amount of times I've posted this, and still people ignore it. It's from the debates in the House (Senate debates were kept secret).

This was the clause they were looking at. If you look at the changes of the clause over the course of time they changed bear arms to "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

But it was also "but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person." (this from June 8th 1789)

Mr Gerry said: "They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."

and: "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head."

Mr Jackson wanted: ""No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""

Mr Sherman stated: "Mr. Sherman conceived it difficult to modify the clause and make it better. It is well known that those who are religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, are equally scrupulous of getting substitutes or paying an equivalent." and further on "besides, it would not do to alter it so as to exclude the whole of any sect, because there are men amongst the Quakers who will turn out, notwithstanding the religious principles of the society, and defend the cause of their country."

and Mr Vining: "Mr. Vining hoped the clause would be suffered to remain as it stood, because he saw no use in it if it was amended so as to compel a man to find a substitute, which, with respect to the Government, was the same as if the person himself turned out to fight."

They all saw "bear arms" as turning out to fight, militia duty, render military service and the like. Not one of them thought this had anything to do with carrying arms for self defense.

You can post all the early arguments you like. What counts is what was voted in.

My point is that the term "bear arms" means "militia duty" or "render military service". What the founding fathers intended is clear. Those who want "bear arms" to mean "carry arms" will then suddenly decide to complete ignore what the Founding Fathers said.

Here's the thing, you won't find a single Founding Father saying that "bear arms" was carry arms. But you'll find loads who say it means something similar to what I've said, including George Washington.

It's the same every time. You show clear evidence of something someone doesn't want to know, and they can't even use words to try and defend their own position. Yes, I get it, your position is so weak you have to resort to childish behavior. I'm just sad that you get the right to vote.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I have no idea what you're talking about here. "nuevo-Communista" is what?

"New Communists" in Spanish.

I know what it means in Spanish. I just have no idea why you're using it and what you mean by this.

I cannot help that.

Do you know what the term "communicate" means? If you cannot communicate your ideas, then what's the point?

I could not have been more clear.

Well that's pretty bad, if you couldn't have been more clear than that, then maybe you need to try and understand that it wasn't actually clear at all and you should perhaps try a little harder.

You know, when learning languages you often see that what you're thinking might be clear to yourself, but to others it makes no sense. I'm telling you it makes no sense, and you have two options, make yourself clear or fuck around trying to save face. The latter, which you chose, is ridiculous.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Documentation please.

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

The amount of times I've posted this, and still people ignore it. It's from the debates in the House (Senate debates were kept secret).

This was the clause they were looking at. If you look at the changes of the clause over the course of time they changed bear arms to "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

But it was also "but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person." (this from June 8th 1789)

Mr Gerry said: "They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."

and: "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head."

Mr Jackson wanted: ""No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""

Mr Sherman stated: "Mr. Sherman conceived it difficult to modify the clause and make it better. It is well known that those who are religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, are equally scrupulous of getting substitutes or paying an equivalent." and further on "besides, it would not do to alter it so as to exclude the whole of any sect, because there are men amongst the Quakers who will turn out, notwithstanding the religious principles of the society, and defend the cause of their country."

and Mr Vining: "Mr. Vining hoped the clause would be suffered to remain as it stood, because he saw no use in it if it was amended so as to compel a man to find a substitute, which, with respect to the Government, was the same as if the person himself turned out to fight."

They all saw "bear arms" as turning out to fight, militia duty, render military service and the like. Not one of them thought this had anything to do with carrying arms for self defense.

You can post all the early arguments you like. What counts is what was voted in.

My point is that the term "bear arms" means "militia duty" or "render military service". What the founding fathers intended is clear. Those who want "bear arms" to mean "carry arms" will then suddenly decide to complete ignore what the Founding Fathers said.

Here's the thing, you won't find a single Founding Father saying that "bear arms" was carry arms. But you'll find loads who say it means something similar to what I've said, including George Washington.

It's the same every time. You show clear evidence of something someone doesn't want to know, and they can't even use words to try and defend their own position. Yes, I get it, your position is so weak you have to resort to childish behavior. I'm just sad that you get the right to vote.

Not at all. There is simply no sense in reasoning with crazy people.

To "bear arms", both at the time of the Founders and today meant and means to carry upon your person. There are endless historical and language sources that will confirm this for you.

Now run along.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

"New Communists" in Spanish.

I know what it means in Spanish. I just have no idea why you're using it and what you mean by this.

I cannot help that.

Do you know what the term "communicate" means? If you cannot communicate your ideas, then what's the point?

I could not have been more clear.

Well that's pretty bad, if you couldn't have been more clear than that, then maybe you need to try and understand that it wasn't actually clear at all and you should perhaps try a little harder.

You know, when learning languages you often see that what you're thinking might be clear to yourself, but to others it makes no sense. I'm telling you it makes no sense, and you have two options, make yourself clear or fuck around trying to save face. The latter, which you chose, is ridiculous.

It makes no sense to you, who makes no sense. Ask me again if I care.

Actually, don't. You're on suspension over your idiotic "bear arms" blather.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Is ISIS dangerous because of Global Warming?

What does the US military say about that?

All of us serious Cultists think that double-entry accounting should be mandatory in high school. What would American life be like today if that had been done since the 1950s? Did Milton Friedman ever suggest that?

psik

Have you ever posted while you were sober?

 

[Uncensored2008]

[
The Second Amendment says you have the "right to bear arms", now the founding fathers said that "bear arms" was "render military service" and "militia duty", whereas the right say it mean "carry arms".

Well now, that is what is known as a "direct lie."

Doesn't seem so concrete when the founding fathers disagree with you. Seeing as I've been telling people this FACT for years, and people on the right have been ignoring it for the whole time is rather telling.

They don't, you're just lying.

Also, you have the "right to bear arms". How many arms? All arms? A limited amount of arms? One type of arms?

Does it give you the right to use a handgun in the militia? Does it give you the right to use a nuclear bomb in the militia?

Sigh, the anti-liberty left are such lying sacks of shit...

 

[Uncensored2008]

[Q


Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

The amount of times I've posted this, and still people ignore it. It's from the debates in the House (Senate debates were kept secret).

This was the clause they were looking at. If you look at the changes of the clause over the course of time they changed bear arms to "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

But it was also "but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person." (this from June 8th 1789)

Mr Gerry said: "They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."

and: "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head."

Mr Jackson wanted: ""No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""

Mr Sherman stated: "Mr. Sherman conceived it difficult to modify the clause and make it better. It is well known that those who are religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, are equally scrupulous of getting substitutes or paying an equivalent." and further on "besides, it would not do to alter it so as to exclude the whole of any sect, because there are men amongst the Quakers who will turn out, notwithstanding the religious principles of the society, and defend the cause of their country."

and Mr Vining: "Mr. Vining hoped the clause would be suffered to remain as it stood, because he saw no use in it if it was amended so as to compel a man to find a substitute, which, with respect to the Government, was the same as if the person himself turned out to fight."

They all saw "bear arms" as turning out to fight, militia duty, render military service and the like. Not one of them thought this had anything to do with carrying arms for self defense.

Your story does not support your lies. The above deals with conscientious objection, not the right of the people to bear arms.


"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …"
Richard Henry Lee
writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic, Letter XVIII, May, 1788.

"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full posession of them."
Zachariah Johnson
Elliot's Debates, vol. 3 "The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution."

"… the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms"
Philadelphia Federal Gazette
June 18, 1789, Pg. 2, Col. 2
Article on the Bill of Rights

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …"
Samuel Adams
quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"