MARCH FOR OUR LIVES

[Fogdog]

Hey, man, olive branch accepted. I’m not trying to debate or say anyone else’s perspective is wrong. I was just saying.

I truly wish we didn’t need firearms. But I believe there’s no closing Pandora’s Box. If you ban certain firearms or overrestrict firearms in this country, that innocent people will be put at a significant disadvantage, trying to defend against a violent criminal who doesn’t follow the rules. You can argue training is needed, and I will agree with you, but putting it in perspective, whether I was trained or not, if I am faced with an armed assailant, I’d rather at least level the playing field, personally.

Again, not opposing, just offering.

I grew up around guns. First fired a hand gun and killed a rattlesnake when I was 8. I still regret killing that snake but at the time that kind of thing was looked upon as a good thing. Personally, I find guns smelly, ugly, dangerous and a waste of time and money. They even make the average gun owner less safe, not more. I've said many times that I don't oppose gun ownership, I oppose the status quo of the practically unregulated market in guns.

I think Canada has done a good job in regulating gun sales with only minor impediments anybody who wants to own a gun for a legitimate purpose. I think the US should lift bans that prevent public funds from being used to research ways to reduce gun violence and gun homicides. I'm perfectly OK with gun owners opposing. However you must recognize that the will of the majority is against you. I hope we can all meet our needs peacefully. 70% majority is an unstoppable force in a democracy.

 

[Terps]

I grew up around guns. First fired a hand gun and killed a rattlesnake when I was 8. I still regret killing that snake but at the time that kind of thing was looked upon as a good thing. Personally, I find guns smelly, ugly, dangerous and a waste of time and money. They even make the average gun owner less safe, not more. I've said many times that I don't oppose gun ownership, I oppose the status quo of the practically unregulated market in guns.

I think Canada has done a good job in regulating gun sales with only minor impediments anybody who wants to own a gun for a legitimate purpose. I think the US should lift bans that prevent public funds from being used to research ways to reduce gun violence and gun homicides. I'm perfectly OK with gun owners opposing. However you must recognize that the will of the majority is against you. I hope we can all meet our needs peacefully. 70% majority is an unstoppable force in a democracy.

Which poll says 70% I'm gonna say it is a Cnn poll

 

[Fogdog]

Not so Fast there bucko.

The Second Amendment was ratified to preserve slavery
Founders Patrick Henry, George Mason, and James Madison were totally clear on that ... and we all should be too.

The real reason the Second Amendment was ratified, and why it says “State” instead of “Country” (the Framers knew the difference – see the 10th Amendment), was to preserve the slave patrol militias in the southern states, which was necessary to get Virginia’s vote. Founders Patrick Henry, George Mason, and James Madison were totally clear on that . . . and we all should be too.

In the beginning, there were the militias. In the South, they were also called the “slave patrols,” and they were regulated by the states.

In Georgia, for example, a generation before the American Revolution, laws were passed in 1755 and 1757 that required all plantation owners or their male white employees to be members of the Georgia Militia, and for those armed militia members to make monthly inspections of the quarters of all slaves in the state. The law defined which counties had which armed militias and even required armed militia members to keep a keen eye out for slaves who may be planning uprisings.

As Dr. Carl T. Bogus wrote for the University of California Law Review in 1998, “The Georgia statutes required patrols, under the direction of commissioned militia officers, to examine every plantation each month and authorized them to search ‘all Negro Houses for offensive Weapons and Ammunition’ and to apprehend and give twenty lashes to any slave found outside plantation grounds.”

It’s the answer to the question raised by the character played by Leonardo DiCaprio in Django Unchained when he asks, “Why don’t they just rise up and kill the whites?” If the movie were real, it would have been a purely rhetorical question, because every southerner of the era knew the simple answer: Well regulated militias kept the slaves in chains.

More in link.....
​

https://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/thom-hartmann-second-amendment-was-ratified-preserve-slavery

You can post your link and I'll post a link to the rebuttal of that argument:

2nd Amendment Passed to Protect Slavery? No!

Recently Thom Hartmann published an essay on Truthout titled "The Second Amendment Was Ratified to Preserve Slavery." Hartmann, who is described on the Internet as a radio host, author, former psychotherapist and entrepreneur and a progressive political commentator, said the amendment to the U.S. Constitution was intended, in part, to protect slave-patrol militias.

Hartmann begins by arguing that "the real reason the Second Amendment was ratified, and why it says 'State' instead of 'Country' " was that the framers wanted "to preserve the slave patrol militias in the southern states, which was necessary to get Virginia's vote."

Hartmann implies that the Second Amendment was adopted (or at least written) to get Virginia's "vote" for ratification of the Constitution, which took place in July 1788. But this is not even remotely true. In 1788 the Second Amendment was not yet written and was not part of the debate over ratification of the Constitution.

It is possible that Hartmann believes that Virginia only ratified the Constitution because of a promise of future amendments. But this is not the case. The opponents of the Constitution — led by Patrick Henry — wanted Virginia to give a conditional ratification that would require future amendments. But Henry lost on this issue. The Virginia convention ratified the Constitution over the strenuous objections — and absence of votes — of Henry, George Mason and their ilk.

Hartmann's "history" gets even more confused when he argues that the purpose of the Second Amendment was to protect slave patrols (which he confuses with the militia) and that James Madison, Patrick Henry and George Mason all teamed up to do this. He argues that Madison changed the text of the Second Amendment to please Mason and Henry. This is almost amusing. Both Henry and Mason were Madison's political enemies, and neither was in Congress when Madison drafted the Bill of Rights. In fact the wording changes took place in the House and Senate. Nor did Mason and Henry have much to do with writing the Second Amendment since they were not in Congress. When the Second Amendment was proposed, Henry opposed it (along with the rest of the Bill of Rights).

The idea of Madison, Henry and Mason teaming up in 1787 or in 1789 (when Madison wrote the Second Amendment) would make an entertaining Saturday Night Live skit. Madison and Henry could not stand each other. They were political opponents throughout this period. After 1787 Mason joined Henry in opposing the Constitution (which Madison worked so hard to create), and both Henry and Mason opposed the Bill of Rights. Indeed Virginia was the last state to ratify the Bill of Rights (in 1791) because of Henry's opposition to the Bill of Rights. Henry wanted to scuttle the whole Constitution and not make it better. So he opposed all the amendments.

To me the best rebuttal to Hartmann's assertions is found in this paragraph:

The Constitution (as opposed to the Bill of Rights) protected slavery in many ways, through the Three-Fifths Clause, the Slave Trade Clause, the Domestic Insurrection Clause, the Fugitive Slave Clause and the amendment provisions. The Fifth Amendment protected slave property, as Chief Justice Taney says in Dred Scott (1857), but most of the rest of the Bill of Rights is not about slavery in any important ways.


more can be found in the link below

https://www.theroot.com/2nd-amendment-passed-to-protect-slavery-no-1790894965

 

[Fogdog]

Which poll says 70% I'm gonna say it is a Cnn poll

Yes, the CNN poll
A CNN poll released this week recorded support for stricter gun control laws at 69 percent — the highest mark since 1993.

Also

POLITICO/Morning Consult poll that shows support for stricter gun laws among registered voters at 68 percent, compared with just 25 percent who oppose stricter gun laws

Also Quinnipac
.American voters support stricter gun laws 66 - 31 percent, the highest level of support ever measured by the independent Quinnipiac University National Poll, with 50 - 44 percent support among gun owners and 62 - 35 percent support from white voters with no college degree and 58 - 38 percent support among white men.

If you want to quibble about 66% and not 70%, I'll laugh and ridicule you.

 

[Terps]

Yes, the CNN poll
A CNN poll released this week recorded support for stricter gun control laws at 69 percent — the highest mark since 1993.

Also

POLITICO/Morning Consult poll that shows support for stricter gun laws among registered voters at 68 percent, compared with just 25 percent who oppose stricter gun laws

Also Quinnipac
.American voters support stricter gun laws 66 - 31 percent, the highest level of support ever measured by the independent Quinnipiac University National Poll, with 50 - 44 percent support among gun owners and 62 - 35 percent support from white voters with no college degree and 58 - 38 percent support among white men.

If you want to quibble about 66% and not 70%, I'll laugh and ridicule you.

Now I just want to point out these are the same polls that said Hillary should be president right now

 

[UncleBuck]

Now I just want to point out these are the same polls that said Hillary should be president right now

ya mean, the same polls that said hillary would win by 2-3%, and she did?

suppose they are off by 1-3% like they were in 2016. that means gun control could be polling at 72%. or 63% at worst.

is that the best point you can make, you pathetic fucking shit?

god you are fucking weak

 

[apollo4201982]

Hey dickwad, this was an international march, not just in the USA, that just alone in DC had an estimated crowd size of over 800,000 participants, not counting all the other cities in this country, and the world.

An initial crowd estimate from Washington, D.C., 4:55 p.m.: March for Our Lives organizers are estimating about 800,000 people gathered in Washington, D.C. Saturday for Saturday’s rally, according to a report from NBC News
.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/24/world/march-for-our-lives-around-the-world-trnd/index.html

Wake up, and stop watching only Fox for your fucked up news and propaganda.

Oh, and while I'm at it, fuck the NRA ( their done ) and fuck your soulmate, that no good piece of shit Trump,

Same organization that predicted clintons victory?

 

[UncleBuck]

Same organization that predicted clintons victory?

last NBC poll before the election had hillary up +4 with a margin of error of +/- 2.1%.

and hillary won by 2.3%, perfectly within their margin of error.

so if your case is that they predicted correctly then and should be trusted now, then good point ya rotten bag of dumbshit.

 

[Terps]

Same organization that predicted clintons victory?

I could see if they were off by a little bit maybe even a 100000 or even 200000. The problem is the fake media reported it as over 800000 in DC alone. The difference between the actual facts in what the mainstream media reported are so vastly different you would have to be an idiot to believe anything they say.

 

[Hotwired]

I am voting for boobies in 2018 and 2020

 

[pabloesqobar]

last NBC poll before the election had hillary up +4 with a margin of error of +/- 2.1%.

and hillary won by 2.3%, perfectly within their margin of error.

so if your case is that they predicted correctly then and should be trusted now, then good point ya rotten bag of dumbshit.

What did she win?

 

[Fogdog]

Now I just want to point out these are the same polls that said Hillary should be president right now

You are right. Doesn't matter though the tide in public opinion has turned and it's only a matter of time before we have control of Congress and can take effective action.

You can take comfort in the fact that at least another 50,000 people will die before we'll be able to pass effective gun controls. Maybe 100,000. So you just enjoy your guns in the knowledge that people are dyeing for your false sense of protection or whatever motivates you to want an unregulated market for guns.

 

[UncleBuck]

What did she win?

the majority of votes of the american people.

unlike your hero trump, she was actually the more popular choice

 

[UncleBuck]

I could see if they were off by a little bit maybe even a 100000 or even 200000. The problem is the fake media reported it as over 800000 in DC alone. The difference between the actual facts in what the mainstream media reported are so vastly different you would have to be an idiot to believe anything they say.

good thing you cited the mainstream media to set the mainstream media straight, eh?

 

[abandonconflict]

Conflicts with principles upon which the United States of America was founded. It’s not going to happen. Respectfully.

They started conflicting with those principles when they said "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal", yet owned other human beings for the purpose of manual labor, while in the midst of a genocidal campaign to take the land this country would become away from its original inhabitants.

 

[UncleBuck]

pipsqueakkk seems upset that hillary got more votes than his racist, failing hero whose illegitimate presidency has been ranked as the worst of all time.

 

[Unclebaldrick]

I could see if they were off by a little bit maybe even a 100000 or even 200000. The problem is the fake media reported it as over 800000 in DC alone. The difference between the actual facts in what the mainstream media reported are so vastly different you would have to be an idiot to believe anything they say.

You said they reported it as tens of thousands. I guess it is fake news to you no matter what they report unless they all get the exact number.

How many people were there at Trump's inauguration day?

 

[pabloesqobar]

pipsqueakkk seems upset that hillary got more votes than his racist, failing hero whose illegitimate presidency has been ranked as the worst of all time.

I don't care about any of that. You're the only one who worships politicians. It's just funny how much of a hypocrite you are. LOL.

 

[llnknth]

id like to shoot auntybuck in the tits with a fully automatic sks!we Russian's don't fuck around

 

[UncleBuck]

I don't care about any of that. You're the only one who worships politicians. It's just funny how much of a hypocrite you are. LOL.

View attachment 4112483

you literally defended trump and tried to tell us he would be pro-pot.

dumb weak racist