DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Xavier_Onassis on May 03, 2014, 07:33:25 PM
-
http://vimeo.com/93436462
-
I think this misses the mark.
It would be better aimed if the author knew something about the NRA.
-
http://www.policymic.com/articles/72067/gun-control-debate-the-argument-that-every-gun-owner-needs-to-start-making
http://www.policymic.com/articles/23929/10-surprising-facts-about-the-nra-that-you-never-hear
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rifle_Association
The National Rifle Association of America (NRA) is an American nonprofit organization[5] founded in 1871 that promotes firearm competency, safety, and ownership, as well as police training, marksmanship, hunting and self-defense training in the United States. The NRA is also one of the United States' largest certifying bodies for firearm safety training and proficiency training courses for police departments, recreational hunting, and child firearm safety. The organization publishes several magazines and sponsors marksmanship events featuring shooting skill and sports.
The NRA is designated by the IRS as a 501(c)(4) with four 501(c)(3) charitable subsidiaries and a Section 527 lobbying group segregated fund: The NRA Political Victory Fund. The NRA controls through its board of trustees the following 501(c)(3) organizations: NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund, NRA Foundation Inc., NRA Special Contribution Fund (dba NRA Whittington Center), and NRA Freedom Action Foundation.[3][6][7][8] The NRA is also the parent organization of affiliated groups such as the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA).
Lobbying
The NRA formed its Legislative Affairs Division to update members with facts and analysis of upcoming bills,[23] after the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA) became the first federal gun-control law passed in the U.S.[24] The NRA supported the NFA along with the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), which together created a system to federally license gun dealers and established restrictions on particular categories and classes of firearms.[25]
Until the middle 1970s, the NRA mainly focused on sportsmen, hunters and target shooters, and downplayed gun control issues. However, passage of the GCA galvanized a growing number of NRA activists, including Harlon Carter. In 1975, it began to focus more on politics and established its lobbying arm, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA), with Carter as director. The next year, its political action committee (PAC), the Political Victory Fund, was created in time for the 1976 elections.[26]:158 The 1977 annual convention was a defining moment for the organization and came to be known as "The Cincinnati Revolution."[27] Leadership planned to relocate NRA headquarters to Colorado and to build a $30 million recreational facility in New Mexico, but activists within the organization whose central concern was Second Amendment rights defeated the incumbents and elected Carter as executive director and Neal Knox as head of the ILA.[28][29]
After 1977, the organization expanded its membership by focusing heavily on political issues and forming coalitions with conservative politicians, most of them Republicans.[30] With a goal to weaken the GCA, Knox's ILA successfully lobbied Congress to pass the Firearm Owners Protection Act (FOPA) of 1986 and worked to reduce the powers of the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). In 1982, Knox was ousted as director of the ILA, but began mobilizing outside the NRA framework and continued to promote opposition to gun control laws.[31]
At the 1991 national convention, Knox's supporters were elected to the board and named staff lobbyist Wayne LaPierre as the executive vice president. The NRA focused its attention on the gun control policies of the Clinton Administration.[32] Knox again lost power in 1997, as he lost reelection to a coalition of moderate leaders who supported movie star Charlton Heston, despite Heston's past support of gun control legislation.[33] In 1994, the NRA unsuccessfully opposed the Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB), but successfully lobbied for the ban's 2004 expiration.[34] Heston was elected president in 1998 and became a highly visible spokesman for the organization. In an effort to improve the NRA's image, Heston presented himself as the voice of reason in contrast to Knox.
the NRA's total income for 2011 was $218,983,530, with total expenditures of $231,071,589. In 2010, the organization reported an income of $227.8 million with roughly $115 million in revenue generated from fundraising, sales, advertising and royalties, with the remainder originating from membership dues.[108] Corporate sponsors include a variety of companies such as outdoors supply, sporting goods companies, and firearm manufacturers.[108][109]
Since 2005, the organization has received at least $14.8 million from more than 50 firearms-related firms[108] In 2008, Beretta exceeded $2 million in donations to the NRA, and in 2012, Smith & Wesson reached $1 million.[110] According to an April 2012 press release, Sturm, Ruger & Company raised $1.25 million through a program in which it donated $1 to the ILA for each gun it sold from May 2011 to May 2012.[110]
In six out of seven surveys conducted by Gallup since 1993, the majority of Americans reported holding a favorable opinion of the National Rifle Association. A Gallup survey conducted in December 2012 found that 54% of Americans held a favorable opinion of the NRA, with Republicans responding significantly more positively about the organization than Democrats.[111] A Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted in April 2012 found that 82% of Republicans and 55% of Democrats see the NRA "in a positive light."[
-
This is the message that the NRA sends out.
They take your money and they waste it.
Three weeks ago, they sent ME a membership card.
I think it may be because I bought a knife from a mail order company online.
-
They certainly wasted postage sending you a card.
The NRA underwent a transformation during the period between the middle 60's to middle 80's.
The first time the organization ever endorsed a presidential candidate was Ronald Reagan.
The membership is not fooled nor tricked nor dissatisfied, the NRA is an effective lobbying organization that is doing what its members want done.
-
It is doing what its ADVERTISERS want done. Please!
Nearly all those guns will outlive the people that bought them, and will be inherited by people who will be on average less responsible. Those that are sold will go the highest, not the most responsible, bidder. We will be more unsafe because of the NRA and the greedhead gun peddlers.
-
Isn't that demonstrably untrue?
The reason that Americans own twice as many guns as we did in 1990 is the Clinton Administration rhetoric and the Obama Administration rhetoric that caused people to fear that their right to buy a gun might be abridged.
The NRA does a lot to facilitate gun ownership , and they carry advertisers in their magazine, but they have never had a drive to increase the numbers of guns owned by the public by a factor of two.
The increasing population does not explain the rise in gun ownership , the population has not increased nearly that much .
The need of gun manufacturers to sell does not explain the total , surplus military guns from Greece and Turkey and Russia have become hot sellers because they are more economical than new guns .Turkish gun makers are selling increasing numbers of new guns which include some surprisingly high quality . But surplus Guns and guns made overseas do not have any clout with the NRA , they are in demand because the ability of the US gun manufacturers has fallen far behind the demand.
Thus everyone that wants a gun has two , and each of us that wants two has six, this is a net increase in the national wealth that will be quite durable as most guns last fifty years or more.
The co-incidence of decreasing crime rates in every category might not be caused by the increasing gun supply , but it surely does demonstrate that an increasing gun supply does nothing to decrease public safety at all.
-
Ownership of guns is no more an increase in the national wealth than collections of Ming vases, cowboy belt buckles, Franklin geegaws or brass spittoons.
They are far worse, since none of the other collectables are likely to become murder weapons.
The NRA's interest is in selling ads to gun manufacturers. They are crafty and not so stupid as to admit that their nonsense is dangerous.
There is NO CHANCE that the ownership of the guns is going to make it possible for the NRA members to overthrow the government. The government has drones, cameras everywhere and crowd control weapons that would make this impossible. They have watched Red Dawn too many times.
The NRA's membership is vastly inferior to the Ukrainian Army. Watch and see how that turns out.
-
This is the message that the NRA sends out.
Naaa, that's the message folks ignorant in the 2nd amendment and the NRA sends out
They take your money and they waste it.
Actually, that's the Federal Government. They literally take. The NRA has no such power to take anything, and you really don't want to go there as far as the amount of $$$$$$ the Government wastes. NO, not talking about roads and infrastructure either
Three weeks ago, they sent ME a membership card.
You are under no obligation to send the NRA any $, or join. Ignorance is a field best provided for those that wish to remain such. But here's a helpful hint. You can become more edicated about what the NRA is really about, without ever becoming a member or even sending them money.
-
I KNOW what the are about.
They are about GUNZZZZZZ.
-
Just goes to show you the level of your ignorance, if that's what you think they're all about
- They are about freedom
- They are about the Constitutional parameters of the 2nd amendment
- They are about the safe handling of firearms
- They are about the defensive use of a firearm
It's only the ignorant folks who think they're only about "gunzzzzz"
-
(http://media.townhall.com/_townhall/uploads/2014/5/6/11.png)
-
I KNOW what the are about.
They are about GUNZZZZZZ.
So are the members.
You have really got it backwards , the members come first and there is no better place to advertise than one of the NRA associated magazines, so the magazines feature a lot of firearms and paraphernalia.
But check this out, there are about ten gun magazines NOT associated with the NRA, because there are a lot of people who want to read them , some are NRA members some are not .
The NRA publishes three monthly magazines , which is evidently not half enough to serve the demand.
-
Ownership of guns is no more an increase in the national wealth than collections of Ming vases, cowboy belt buckles, Franklin geegaws or brass spittoons.
and no lessThey are far worse, since none of the other collectables are likely to become murder weapons.
Coronel Mustard in the Conservatory with the brass spittoon.
The NRA's interest is in selling ads to gun manufacturers. They are crafty and not so stupid as to admit that their nonsense is dangerous.
No, the NRA is useful to the gun enthusiast and helps protect the second amendment, which both preexist the NRA and exist outside the NRA.There is NO CHANCE that the ownership of the guns is going to make it possible for the NRA members to overthrow the government. The government has drones, cameras everywhere and crowd control weapons that would make this impossible. They have watched Red Dawn too many times.
The NRA's membership is vastly inferior to the Ukrainian Army. Watch and see how that turns out.
That is exactly the original idea of the Second Amendment , Thomas Jefferson and company thought that the government would be more manageable if it had a fear of the peoples military might, if this is really reversed now then this is a serious wrong that should be righted .
Your suggestion about having bazookas would be a good start.
-
You are ignorant, except for reality (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20RoAfflGCM&noredirect=1)
-
The Second Amendment referred to the local militias and that was simply code for the slave patrollers. apprehending and punishing slaves who were captured without passes. A good way for an influential plantation owner to eliminate the competition of smaller and less well-connected plantation owners was to bribe the patrollers to burn the little guy's passes and to sell his slaves.
-
So now the 2nd amendment was "code"?? ::) The Bill of Rights, including the 2nd, had squat to do with slaves. It had everything to do in trying to protect this new found country from the oppression that they just won their freedom from
-
It's stunning how some folks are sooo sharp, to determine that the rest of the Bill of Rights, can be referencing everyone, but only the 2nd amendment, without saying it, is code about slaves, and nothing more. How convenient....and completely without a shred of validity to it :o
-
The Second Amendment referred to the local militias and that was simply code for the slave patrollers. apprehending and punishing slaves who were captured without passes. A good way for an influential plantation owner to eliminate the competition of smaller and less well-connected plantation owners was to bribe the patrollers to burn the little guy's passes and to sell his slaves.
This is very wild.
Got a reference? I would like to read more about how "militia" in the constitution only means "slave patrol " and doesn't really mean what it says.
-
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Notice something that one would think a linguistic professor, who could discuss issues objectively, would make note of....the comma.
While I've discussed this issue in far greater detail in previous posts, with Supreme court precedent to support my position, a far simpler rendering of the very clear 2nd amendment phasing demonstrates, with the comma, that while the founders knew that the security of the country would require the need for a well armed and regulated militia, regulated by the Government, that that should, and would not interfere with the citizenry to also be armed......in the event that a Government were to again become as oppressive as the English Government was becoming at that time
This is consistent with the Constitution in general, and the Bill of Rights specifically.....CLEAR parameters and LIMITS as to what the Federal Government would be allowed to perform. Nothing about slaves, slave patrols, or muskets
-
The Second Amendment referred to the local militias and that was simply code for the slave patrollers. apprehending and punishing slaves who were captured without passes. A good way for an influential plantation owner to eliminate the competition of smaller and less well-connected plantation owners was to bribe the patrollers to burn the little guy's passes and to sell his slaves.
This is very wild.
Got a reference? I would like to read more about how "militia" in the constitution only means "slave patrol " and doesn't really mean what it says.
You know, what xo referenced, may, (I say may, given xo's history on claims), but may be an accurate scenario of the time...that of the bribing of "slave patrols", giving wealthier plantation owners a leg up on the lesser ones.......all of which, of course, has absolutely nothing to do with the 2nd amendment to the Constitution, of the United States of America
-
The Second Amendment specifically mentions militias. Being as the Northerners were opposed to slavery, they did not specifically mention it. The Northerners felt threatened by British invading from Canada, the Southerners felt most threatened by slave rebellions, such as occurred in Haiti beginning in 1789 and on many Caribbean Islands. In the West, the threat was Indians, especially the Shawnee Confederacy. And of course, hunting game was quite common because the country was overwhelmingly rural.
And of course, the guns in question were single shot affairs.
-
The Second Amendment specifically mentions militias.
Precisely...as needed to defend the brand new country, now referred to as the United States. It ALSO, using the comma, SPECIFICALLY references that there is a need for the civilian population to also be armed, not just a well regulated militia....such a need, that their right shall not be infringed
Being as the Northerners were opposed to slavery, they did not specifically mention it.
So by virtue of clear unambiguous language, the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with slavery
hunting game was quite common because the country was overwhelmingly rural. And of course, the guns in question were single shot affairs.
At the time....yes there was and yes they were....which both are completely irrelevant to the clear language of the 2nd amendment. Sorry professor, you can't read into it, what isn't there
-
You read tons of meaning into a comma.
Go bugger yourself, sirs.
-
http://www.firearmscoalition.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=722:reforming-the-second-amendment&catid=19:the-knox-update&Itemid=144
The fact is that throughout our history, just as today, judges and justices often interpreted the Constitution in whatever way would best suit their desired outcome. A standout example of federal judges expressing a universal, individual right view of the Second Amendment can be seen in the majority opinion penned by Chief Justice Taney in the infamous Dredd Scott decision. In that decision, arguing against recognition of citizenship for blacks, Taney wrote; "It would give to persons of the negro race, ... the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, ... the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went."
-
You read tons of meaning into a comma.
It's actually called reading for context. You, a language professor of all people, should have been able to grasp that. Noticed also how you could come to answer plane's simple inquiry either. No surprise there
-
Militia does not mean "slave patrol", but a slave patrol would be considered a militia.
A difficult concept for the squishy minded, I realize. All slave patrols can be regarded as militia, since they protect the citizenry against escaped and murderous slaves like Nat Turner rampaging over the countryside. When Monroe was governor of VA, there was a plot by some slaves and assorted free Blacks to kidnap him and hold him the ransom until slavery was abolished. Events in Haiti, Martinique and Guadeloupe and several British Caribbean Islands in which the slaves escaped and murdered their owners with machetes and assorted guns and garden tools were well known in the South.
All militia, however, were not slave patrols. In the West, the militias were used to protect against such things as Indians and Mormons. In my home town the county militia marched off to the Mexican War, won every battle, and when their promised year was over, they marched home, even though the war was not over.
It is like this: All slave patrols could be considered as militia.
Not all militia could be considered slave patrols.
Similar to: All peanut butter is a sandwich spread, yet not all sandwich spreads are peanut butter. Draw yourself a Venn diagram, or get your mommy to do it.
-
Militia does not mean "slave patrol"
Never said it did. You're the one that made the irrational connection
but a slave patrol would be considered a militia.
Whatever...and if so, so what? Has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment, or that the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed ::)
-
The Second Amendment referred to the local militias and that was simply code for the slave patrollers.
This was the part that Plane was asking about. Your words. Putting aside for the moment that militias and the rest of the civilian poulation are 2 distinct entities being referenced in the 2nd amendment, what/where is your source that militias, as outlined in the 2nd amendment referred to slave patrollers?
Or more importantly, what's your support that the Second Amendment militias were simply code for the slave patrollers? Your making these connections....based on.....what exactly?
-
It has to do with me knowing the history of this country and your abysmal ignorance of the same.
Slavery was an inseparable part of life in the pre Civil War South. Read some books written back then sometime.
-
So, in other words, you have nothing but the 99% erroneous opinion to stake your claim on. and BTW, I have read some books on the subject. I'd recommend you try reading the Constitution some time, especially the Bill of Rights. Here's a hint, nothing in there had any reference to slavery, or "slave patrols"
-
It has to do with me knowing the history of this country and your abysmal ignorance of the same.
Slavery was an inseparable part of life in the pre Civil War South. Read some books written back then sometime.
Is there any indication that the second amendment was discussed in Congress in these terms?
Or that the revolt in Haiti occurred after the adoption of the second amendment? Years later ?
So if the second amendment was crucial for slave patrol and popular for slave patrol , why was it also a popular idea where there were few slaves?
Could we find some reference to how slave patrol was organized?
-
Looks as if this was a state sanctioned activity.
Thus the Second Amendment is not applicable.
South Carolina and Virginia selected patrols from state militias.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_patrol
-
The Bill of Rights was written in 1789, and ratified in 1791. The French Revolution ended slavery and peonage in France in 1789. The word spread to the French Caribbean and then to the English and Dutch Islands.
In 1733, the slaves of the Danish Island of St Johns actually defeated their masters and took over the island. This is the same St Johns that, together with St Croix and St. Thomas, form the US Virgin Islands. Most of the slaves came from Ghana. As a result, on other slave territories, slaves from several areas were bought, so that they had no common language and culture and conspiracies could be avoided. In 1734, a French army landed and defeated the slaves. There was a slave rebellion in the State of Veracruz in 1509 in a place called Yanga de los Negros that was never reconquered.
One reason for Greek and Roman architecture was so popular in the Southern US was because both the Greeks and the Romans has plantations on which the labor was done by slaves. Slave owners were very concerned with preventing rebellions and controlling their slaves. Their motto was "The only way to defeat a slave with a machete is a slave patroller with a gun."
In August of 1791 Dutty Boukmann organized a rebellion at Bois Caiman and a week later 1800 plantations were burned and around 1000 slaveholders were killed.
It had to be a major news event in Virginia during this period.
-
That timeline does not make it look like a response to slave rebellion, and if the slave patrol was state sanctioned then the second amendment is not involved.
In states and cities worldwide, the government has the right to arm its law enforcement appropriate to their task, if there were no second amendment couldn't there still be state sanctioned slave patrols?
-
I think those who wrote the Bill of Rights wanted national implementation. Slaves can escape and run off to other states, after all.
In 1789, the French Revolution made abolition and the end of aristocracy a major issue.
Plantation owners saw that they had two enemies: the British, who would have preferred to have their own aristocracy in charge of the US, and slave revolts, because without slavery, plantations were not viable. The idea of being a "gentleman farmer" involved giving orders rather than getting one's hands dirty. Another problem was posed by the huge booms and busts in the economy of the US that occurred regularly every 7 to 10 years.
After 9-11, there were immediate measures taken. The 2nd Amendment was an immediate measure to benefit slaveholders.
-
What you "think" and what is is generally a chasm of difference. What was the reason for the knee jerk reaction to the 1st amendment? And the 4th, and 5th?
Without some actual support that the 2nd amendment was chiefly some knee jerk reaction to slaves, its going to remain, as per the clear wording of what it really is, the right of the people (NOT the well regulated militia) to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed
-
I think those who wrote the Bill of Rights wanted national implementation. Slaves can escape and run off to other states, after all.
In 1789, the French Revolution made abolition and the end of aristocracy a major issue.
Plantation owners saw that they had two enemies: the British, who would have preferred to have their own aristocracy in charge of the US, and slave revolts, because without slavery, plantations were not viable. The idea of being a "gentleman farmer" involved giving orders rather than getting one's hands dirty. Another problem was posed by the huge booms and busts in the economy of the US that occurred regularly every 7 to 10 years.
After 9-11, there were immediate measures taken. The 2nd Amendment was an immediate measure to benefit slaveholders.
No.
None of the proponents of the bill of rights proposed any of the amendments and argued for them on the basis of better law enforcement.
The author and the proponents argued in favor of these as guarantees of individual rights.
Do you spend time second guessing ulterior purpose of the first or fourth amendments?
Enforcement of slave law did not require the second amendment in any way, and I don't think it came up in the conversation at the time.
They were thinking more of the time that the British confiscated all the firearms of Boston, which we all resented as repression.
-
Slavery was not mentioned, because it was a controversial issue. The Congress even passed a law prohibiting the subject from being discussed in Congress.
So they appealed to other motives. But that does not mean that slave patrols were on the minds of those who controlled the country.
Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, JQ Adams, Van Buren and Jackson. Of our first eight presidents, six were slave-owning Southerners.
-
Regardless of your opinion as to why slavery isn't mentioned, the FACT IS THAT IT IS NOT. What IS THERE stands on its own and can't be any clearer, especially when taken in context with the rest of the Constitution in general, and Bill of Rights specifically
-
Slavery was not mentioned, because it was a controversial issue. The Congress even passed a law prohibiting the subject from being discussed in Congress.
So they appealed to other motives. But that does not mean that slave patrols were on the minds of those who controlled the country.
Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, JQ Adams, Van Buren and Jackson. Of our first eight presidents, six were slave-owning Southerners.
Missing the point!
Slave patrols never needed the second amendment, they were state sanctioned and need the second amendment no more than the sheriff does.
This is not an issue at all.
Was the Second amendment written to make sure that the Government would be armed?
Quite the opposite, it was written to ensure that the citizen would be armed, and this is the reason cited by Justice Taney in his Dred Scott opinion that there was no citizenship rights for Negro persons.
-
If it was written to ensure that every citizen would be armed, it would have read, "Every citizen must be armed".
Chief Justice Taney was apparently quite popular in Missouri. They named a country for him. Then they named Lake Taneycomo after Taney County.
There was nothing at all in the Constitution barring Blacks from citizenship.
-
Again missing the point. ... its the FREEDOM to chose, not that they must, and more importantly, that the Government NOT be allowed to remove that RIGHT, unless of course they committed some criminal act, ..... or covered up some incompetent government act
-
If it was written to ensure that every citizen would be armed, it would have read, "Every citizen must be armed".
Chief Justice Taney was apparently quite popular in Missouri. They named a country for him. Then they named Lake Taneycomo after Taney County.
There was nothing at all in the Constitution barring Blacks from citizenship.
So you think Justice Taney wrong?
Not too surprising , almost everyone in this modern day agree that Justice Taney was wrong , but he was in agreement with a very large faction at the time.
Ever heard of the three fifths compromise? Some congressmen wanted to have the representation in congress proportional to the entire population whether slave or free, other congressmen thought that it was unfair to claim to represent people that would never be allowed to vote and wanted representation to reflect only the voting population.
It was horse trading and compromise that made slaves count as three quarter persons for representation in Congress, that is in the Constitution , as time has passed amendments have mooted this , but we still have it on the page , a good thing in my estimation , we need that humiliation.
-
Taney was wrong about the citizenship of free Blacks. The Constitution says that all things not forbidden are permitted. No where does it say that Blacks are excluded from citizenship. It DOES mention the exclusion of "Indians not taxed", however. Missourians do not apparently pronounce Taney's name correctly in the name of Taney County: they pronounce it as though it rhymed with "sanely", and the Taney family pronounced it to rhyme with "brawny".
It is certainly true that many Americans, even Northerners, agreed with the Dred Scott decision. Its main result was that escaped slaves, who could previously resettle in Massachusetts, could no longer feel safe from being recaptured and sent back to a life of slavery. After Dred Scott, they had to make it to Canada. Most of the Balcks in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia are descendents of these escaped slaves.
America was seen as a land of opportunity from the beginning. However, opportunities for amassing wealth were not seen as they are today: inventing new gadgets or drugs, coming to preside over a large corporation, marketing innovative products.
The best opportunities before the Civil War were:
(1) discovering gold or silver.
(2) marrying a rich spouse
(3) trading in slaves
(4) loansharking
(5) cardsharping
(6) acquiring free or cheap land from the government, buying slaves and growing tobacco, indigo or cotton.
The latter was probably the most long lasting. Marrying for money was difficult due to the preference of rich people to marry other rich people, just as today.
Claim jumping was a common occurrence in most gold rushes, California being the greatest.
Trading in slaves was risky and dangerous.
Loansharking and cardsharping tended to provoke being tarred, feathered and run out of town on a rail.
The Plantation option was the choice that led to respectability. Just as there are millions of Americans today that approve of casinos and state lotteries because they are certain that it will result eventually in their hitting the jackpot, slavery was seen as a possible way of becoming a genteel and respected citizen.
-
Now here's a perfect tangent for folks, especially the professor. One that is largely opinion only, that requires no factual/evidentiary back-up. Leave the facts and the clear wording of the Constitution & 2nd amendment to those who are a tad more up to speed on those concepts 8)
-
You are too effing stupid to realize that no one is safer with thousands more guns all over the place. I could give a flying fuck for the Second Amendment.
-
You best avoid the "stupid" label....especially being that facts and reality are not on your side either
-
You are the best candidate for the stupid label I have ever had the misfortune to meet.
Your score in the ignorance department is also quite lofty.
Plus, you are boring as last Tuesday's dog turds and utterly witless.
-
And notice yet again, absolutely zero facts to support said allegation/opinion. Just more 3rd grade potty mouth. Priceless 8)
-
And you are as snide and booooooring as ever.
-
wash....rinse....repeat (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=18048.msg156377#msg156377)
-
You are too effing stupid to realize that no one is safer with thousands more guns all over the place. I could give a flying fuck for the Second Amendment.
"....that no one is safer with thousands more guns all over the place..."
But ... people are safer in well armed crowds than in gun free zones.
That is what the facts demonstrate!
It is also intuitive .
What twisted imagination concludes that the best safety is found where no honest person is armed, but the scofflaw only is armed.
It is just so totally counterintuitive and against logic , it is very hard to understand.
-
You are too effing stupid to realize that no one is safer with thousands more guns all over the place. I could give a flying fuck for the Second Amendment.
"....that no one is safer with thousands more guns all over the place..."
But ... people are safer in well armed crowds than in gun free zones.
That is what the facts demonstrate!
But....but....Plane.....you can't be pulling out facts to a hard core liberal, who's mind is already programmed to ignore those inconvenient facts
It is also intuitive .
What twisted imagination concludes that the best safety is found where no honest person is armed, but the scofflaw only is armed.
It is just so totally counterintuitive and against logic , it is very hard to understand.
Stop being so damn logical. Its's like trying to debate Spock ;)