Great example of why we can't trust Liberals with our Constitution rights.

Lincoln was a Republican and freed the slaves. That in itself is quite liberal.

This made the southern Democrats quite mad who wanted to keep their slaves. They were conservatives.

It started that way but he did open the gates for future actions.

But Yes it was to punish the South by taking away their slaves but not in the North.

Still the idea spread

Still these event led to the emancipation proclamation
and eventually the 13th Amendment which abolished slavery

So Lincoln did free the slaves

Still just because they were free does not mean that they were equal.

Lincoln didn't give a damn about slavery. He was fighting to preserve the union, no more and no less, and he stated as much.
 
I understand the premise. Training in and of itself can be seen as method of infringement.

But... Can we do better? I think we can. We understand at the founding of our country, majority of households probably had a few guns. Father had one to hunt and taught his sons and probably a few daughter on how to shoot. Guns were a way of life and had two primary purposes, hunting and more importantly, protecting the people from tyranny. This was taught along with responsible gun ownership.

Fast forward to today, the guns of our forefathers are different, but not only that, the public perception of the 2A, gun ownership, and the proliferation of guns in our country has created a new perception on both sides of the political aisle.

This is for several reasons, the lack of education and training.

If the 2A is a right then we should be educated as to WHY we have that right. It's not personal protection (even though that is a secondary benefit of the 2A), it's the protection of our personal freedom from foreign and domestic tyranny. Our ability to take up arms against a gov't that has overstepped its bounds is the primary reason we have the 2A and why it's also codified in many State constitutions.

Then we should have some training which is birthed out of the right to bear given by the 2A. But how do we do it? The education and training could be done in our high schools using air rifles from trained personnel. In this education it is taught why the 2A exists. Each state can then teach their own individual gun laws because we know that to use a gun carries a big legal burden, justified or not. Then we teach gun safety and basic shooting skills using air rifles.

Then when you graduate HS, you are now know why we are armed and have some basic skills on how to shoot and use a rifle.
This then carries with it culpability. Use a gun in a crime, you were taught the consequences and now will face just punishment.

TBH, I've seen a few 'kids' walk into a gun store who have no clue what they are doing. I get it, it's their right, but we all know they have no clue what they are doing. And that's scary.
I agree-gun safety should be taught starting in elementary school.
 
It started that way but he did open the gates for future actions.

But Yes it was to punish the South by taking away their slaves but not in the North.

Still the idea spread

Still these event led to the emancipation proclamation
and eventually the 13th Amendment which abolished slavery

So Lincoln did free the slaves

Still just because they were free does not mean that they were equal.

The ultimate results of a policy or initiative cannot always be credited to the person who institigated events that produced an eventual result.

I am an admirer of Lincoln in many ways, but the man was a product of his culture and as most people were, quite racist. While like all Republicans, he opposed slavery, he had no intention of black people being equal with whites and disapproved of blacks and whites mingling socially. He thought seriously of relocating black people to Liberia where many freed and escaped black people already were.

Down through the years, the Republicans have been instrumental in policies to bring people of color into the mainstream. Now it is the Republicans who advocate for a color blind society where skin color will be of no more importance than hair or eye color when it comes to choices, options, opportunity, etc. That, along with an English only policy in government, will go further to help black people and other of color than any other initiative in history.

And alas Lincoln, as remarkable a man as he was in many ways, can't take any credit for that.

And Democrats today who oppose that are the ultimate racists in our society and denying black people the ability to be all they can be--they are required to think, behave, speak as BLACK people, not Americans--remain the ultimate racists in our society.

One more reason not to trust them with our constitutional rights.
 
Last edited:
I trust Democrats with the right to keep and bear arms less than they trust Republicans with the right to an abortion.
Wouldn't it be great if the Democrats and Republicans agreed on the MAGA vision? They would probably still disagree on many points of how to achieve it and that would be an honest debate.

But for the Democrats to oppose that MAGA vision is incomprehensible to honorable people. To distort, misrepresent, flat out lie about it should be denounced and opposed by all honorable people. It is hateful, destructive, counter productive, indefensible.

Yes some Republicans went too far with their abortion laws. I suspect eventually those laws will be modified to something more reasonable. But reasonable regulation of abortion is not only a very good thing, but it will help restore basic American appreciation for the value of life and the worth of every human being. That too is encased in the MAGA vision.

As for carrying firearms, I say there is zero data showing that it is dangerous for a law abiding person to carry one regardless of whether that person is a Democrat or Republican or something else.
 
The ultimate results of a policy or initiative cannot always be credited to the person who institigated events that produced an eventual result.

I am an admirer of Lincoln in many ways, but the man was a product of his culture and as most people were, quite racist. While like all Republicans, he opposed slavery, he had no intention of black people being equal with whites and disapproved of blacks and whites mingling socially. He thought seriously of relocating black people to Liberia where many freed and escaped black people already were.

Down through the years, the Republicans have been instrumental in policies to bring people of color into the mainstream. Now it is the Republicans who advocate for a color blind society where skin color will be of no more importance than hair or eye color when it comes to choices, options, opportunity, etc. That, along with an English only policy in government, will go further to help black people and other of color than any other initiative in history.

And alas Lincoln, as remarkable a man as he was in many ways, can't take any credit for that.

And Democrats today who oppose that are the ultimate racists in our society and denying black people the ability to be all they can be--they are required to think, behave, speak as BLACK people, not Americans--remain the ultimate racists in our society.

One more reason not to trust them with our constitutional rights.
Despite your arguments the one thing that shuts it down is that he did free the slaves under his watch.

You say democrats are racist but the first black president was a democrat. He won twice and it not was because of republicans.

Yeah republican can say lincoln freed the slaves but that was before the great switch when Democrats were conservative and Republicans were liberals. Then the switch when Republicans became democrats and conservatives were Repubicans and lliberals were democrats.



Republicans in the early years were considerred liberal. Democrats were conservative years ago. Then it switched at a later date.





Popular Vote Totals
Finally a republian who actually get more votes and that was Trump

Yet Biden got probably one of the most in history. Unfortunately he just got to old

Harris lost because the democrats let her down and from the numbers Trump got more votes than previous republicans.
 
The Bruen decision said that the states must allow the right to keep and bear arms or show overwhelming evidence on why it should be infringed..

However, the Democrats, as usual, don't believe in the Bill of Rights.

This is a great example of why we can't trust Liberals in general and Democrat specifically with our Constitutional Rights. They will always do the wrong thing. Imagine charging $1300 to enjoy any of the other rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

Then the leaders in California wonder why a thousand people are leaving California every day.

https://www.guns.com/news/2023/04/12/city-approves-plan-for-1-300-carry-permits

When state lawmakers removed a cap on carry permit fees in 2019, gun rights advocates warned something like this would happen.

The Democrat-controlled City Council of Morgan Hill, California last week gave a 4-1 thumbs up for a plan that establishes a fee scale for city-issued concealed carry permits. As the city fundamentally had a "no issue" policy when it came to such CCW licenses, the Morgan Hill Police Department has none in circulation. Those who sought a permit from the city were left to prove a subjective "special need" to authorities.

However, with the U.S. Supreme Court's Bruen decision last year upending such "proper cause" no-issue permitting schemes, Morgan Hill's City Council got cracking on a fee schedule that instead sets an almost impossibly high bar to obtaining a locally issued CCW.

A staff report approved by the Council on April 5 holds that the cost for a permit would be around $1,366 per applicant. This would include $131 in miscellaneous city feeds, a $150 psychological test, 16 hours of firearms safety training at an approved course for approximately $350, and $20 for fingerprints.

The real zinger, however, is $800 for the CCW itself.

The Council maintains the $800 processing fee is needed to cover the six hours of review for each permit by a Community Services Officer ($419.52), another hour of review by a police Sergeant ($167.81), and an hour under the eyes of a Police Captain ($209.56.)

For now, renewals for future CCWs would be a bargain at just $227.

The city, an affluent community at the southern tip of Silicon Valley, in the San Francisco Bay Area, expects to begin issuing permits sometime in May.

The ability to set almost any fee for locally issued CCW permits stems from a 2019 bill, AB 1297, which was among 15 anti-gun proposals signed into law at the same time by Gov. Gavin Newsom. The measure deleted the existing $100 limit on processing fees for police chiefs or sheriffs who issue concealed firearm licenses in the state. The California Rifle & Pistol Association at the time warned lawmakers that the bill “will result in high and inconsistent fees charged throughout the state.”

The move by Morgan Hill is not the first time that local governments have attempted to price out facets of the right to keep and bear arms. In 2016, lawmakers in the U.S. Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands instituted a $1,000 excise tax on handguns that was subsequently found unconstitutional by a federal court. Of note, both the CMNI and California are part of the same federal judicial court of appeals-- the U.S. 9th Circuit.
What you support kills 45,000 to 49,000 per year in the US due to poor gun sense.

To put that into perspective, UK averages 28 gun deaths per year (pssst, we have guns), so take your figure of 45,000 and divide by 365 days, that's 123 per day. One quarter of that is 30.75!! You kill way more on one day by lunchtime than the UK does in one year.

And you're higher on knife killings, violence etc..
 
It's quite common for a gun nut to say " a fully armed society is a polite society". Just one quick question. Is a drunk with a gun more polite than a drunk without a gun? The same question for someone caught up in a road rage incident. Is a road rager more polite with or without a gun?
It's quite common for you to come up with false equivalencies.

The statement about a fully armed society is a true one if everyone is thinking straight.

A drunk without a gun is no more polite than a drunk with a gun. A drunk behind the wheel of a car is very not polite and if you had a gun you might prevent a death.

If a road rager has a gun and starts walking towards a car, what does he do when he sees the person he's getting ready to rage against holding a shotgun? Hmmmmm.........

In no way does the statement you quoted make allowences for the fact that sometimes people are not thinking straight.

If someone is mentally ill and they come at you with a knife.......what do you do? I'll bet you just stand there.
 
It's quite common for you to come up with false equivalencies.

The statement about a fully armed society is a true one if everyone is thinking straight.

A drunk without a gun is no more polite than a drunk with a gun. A drunk behind the wheel of a car is very not polite and if you had a gun you might prevent a death.

If a road rager has a gun and starts walking towards a car, what does he do when he sees the person he's getting ready to rage against holding a shotgun? Hmmmmm.........

In no way does the statement you quoted make allowences for the fact that sometimes people are not thinking straight.

If someone is mentally ill and they come at you with a knife.......what do you do? I'll bet you just stand there.
Quite often people don't think straight. That's when them being armed is especially dangerous.
 
So Lincoln did free the slaves
No he didnt. And the EP was political theater for England because he didnt want them to start funding the confederacy.
Thats why he only "freed" the slaves he had no authority over.
Lincoln supported an amendment to the constitution that made slavery legal forever. he didnt give two shits about them. He only cared about money and his ego.
 
No he didnt. And the EP was political theater for England because he didnt want them to start funding the confederacy.
Thats why he only "freed" the slaves he had no authority over.
Lincoln supported an amendment to the constitution that made slavery legal forever. he didnt give two shits about them. He only cared about money and his ego.
I don't really agree with all of that either. It is true the freeing the slaves was not for their benefit and, without the secession of the southern states, he never would have done that. It was to punish those states.

But based on historical research and written history, I honestly think Lincoln was an honorable man. He definitely was a creature of his culture as most of us are. His sense of ethics on matters such as racial issues was different from ours because the U.S. and world culture was different from ours at that time.

The uglier side of that was not included in children's history books as Lincoln, like Washington, was held up as an example of what good Americans should be to them. But as we became older we have been allowed to see the bad with the good because we could put it into its proper perspective. That was when critical thinking was allowed in American education though.

Those exercising critical thinking could understand how our sense of morality changes over time and don't make absolute black and white (no pun intended) judgments about those who lived long ago. We could understand that there was good and bad in every person and even those we hold up as historical heroes could at times have feet of clay. We don't demonize them for that nor allow it to negate the important things that they accomplished for America and Americans.

We can debate Lincoln's judgment on how he handled the southern states' secession from the union and whether a long, bloody, divisive war could have been avoided. I've often wondered how someone like President Trump would have handled that, but I can't imagine him allowing conditions that would have caused the secession in the first place.

We now have a situation that the so-called liberals among us are pushing a morality and policy that is intolerable to the MAGA/libertarian (small "L")/Patriot. That became so bad under Biden, there was increased talk of secession from the union by a number of states. Had Trump not been elected and it continued, that talk no doubt would have become more intense and serious.

And that is why liberals, as we call them--they are about as illiberal as it gets actually--cannot be trusted with our constitutional rights.
 
I don't really agree with all of that either. It is true the freeing the slaves was not for their benefit and, without the secession of the southern states, he never would have done that. It was to punish those states.

But based on historical research and written history, I honestly think Lincoln was an honorable man. He definitely was a creature of his culture as most of us are. His sense of ethics on matters such as racial issues was different from ours because the U.S. and world culture was different from ours at that time.

The uglier side of that was not included in children's history books as Lincoln, like Washington, was held up as an example of what good Americans should be to them. But as we became older we have been allowed to see the bad with the good because we could put it into its proper perspective. That was when critical thinking was allowed in American education though. Those exercising critical thinking could understand how our sense of morality changes over time and don't make absolute black and white (no pun intended) judgments about those who lived long ago.

We can debate Lincoln's judgment on how he handled the southern states' secession from the union and whether a long, bloody, divisive war could have been avoided. I've often wondered how someone like President Trump would have handled that, but I can't imagine him allowing conditions that would have caused the secession in the first place.

We now have a situation that the so-called liberals among us are pushing a morality and policy that is intolerable to the MAGA/libertarian (small "L")/Patriot. That became so bad under Biden, there was increased talk of secession from the union. Had Trump not been elected and it continued, that talk no doubt would have become more intense and serious.

And that is why liberals, as we call them--they are about as illiberal as it gets actually--cannot be trusted with our constitutional rights.
He did it because England was about to start financing the confederacy.
He was a tyrant. Tyrants arent honorable. In any way, shape or form.
I completely agree with the last line.
 
He did it because England was about to start financing the confederacy.
He was a tyrant. Tyrants arent honorable. In any way, shape or form.
I completely agree with the last line.
Well we can disagree. Good people will always disagree on something.
 
15th post
No he didnt. And the EP was political theater for England because he didnt want them to start funding the confederacy.
Thats why he only "freed" the slaves he had no authority over.
Lincoln supported an amendment to the constitution that made slavery legal forever. he didnt give two shits about them. He only cared about money and his ego.
The Emancipation Proclamation, officially Proclamation 95,<a href="Emancipation Proclamation - Wikipedia"><span>[</span>2<span>]</span></a><a href="Emancipation Proclamation - Wikipedia"><span>[</span>3<span>]</span></a> was a presidential proclamation and executive order<a href="Emancipation Proclamation - Wikipedia"><span>[</span>4<span>]</span></a>

issued by United States president Abraham Lincoln on January 1, 1863, during the American Civil War. The Proclamation had the effect of changing the legal status of more than 3.5 million enslaved African Americans in the secessionist Confederate states from enslaved to free.

England is not part of the US. So talking about England as if it matter in the US is irrelevant
 
The Emancipation Proclamation, officially Proclamation 95,<a href="Emancipation Proclamation - Wikipedia"><span>[</span>2<span>]</span></a><a href="Emancipation Proclamation - Wikipedia"><span>[</span>3<span>]</span></a> was a presidential proclamation and executive order<a href="Emancipation Proclamation - Wikipedia"><span>[</span>4<span>]</span></a>

issued by United States president Abraham Lincoln on January 1, 1863, during the American Civil War. The Proclamation had the effect of changing the legal status of more than 3.5 million enslaved African Americans in the secessionist Confederate states from enslaved to free.

England is not part of the US. So talking about England as if it matter in the US is irrelevant
A lot of shit gets posted here, from the informed to the near brilliant and the ridiculous to the completely retarded. Yours falls into that last category.
 
A lot of shit gets posted here, from the informed to the near brilliant and the ridiculous to the completely retarded. Yours falls into that last category.
You mean yours fall in the nearly retarded because you post nothing of relevance. Is there intellegence where you are from?
 
1758678452333.webp
 
Back
Top Bottom