Now they control both Houses, so they're gonna try, try again.

[grasping the after wind]

The people who wrote the Second Amendment lived in the time when single-shot flintlocks were the most prevalent weapon. They had no conception of modern weaponry, including AR and AK weapons.

BTW, have you read the first part of the 2nd Amendment? "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." People running around taking the law into their own hands violates this clause: 1) they're not a well-regulated militia and 2) they don't have the security of the country as their goal.

The men that wrote the 2nd Amendment did not think it was necessary for someone to be in a militia in order to have a right to self defense and they were not unaware of the likelihood of technological advancement . The principle of the right to self defense is not tied to only being allowed to have flintlocks.

 

[Silverback]

You think the civil war was about slavery? Then how come it wasn't until the middle of it, when the north was looking like they were going to lose, that Lincoln declared the emancipation proclamation as a desperate attempt to get the southern blacks to defect? There were far more issues at hand than slavery. It's amazing how quick you lot are to try to paint someone as racist rather than engaging with arguments. Nothing more than an ad hominem.

As far as the slavery issue goes, it was the the #1 reason the Southern States succeeded, it was mentioned in every one of the states articles of succession, or other documents, it can't be ignored, without the slave issue there would have been a US Civil War.

That being said, this was the view of the Southern Governments, and the 7% of southern citizens that maintained enslaved persons. However, the 7% only applies to the actual slave holder, usually the "man of the house". But if you factor in the full number of persons residing in a slave holding household, who ordered the slaves around, and could inherent them as property, that number rises to about 30%.

The other 70% of Southern Citizens who had no slaves, and would likely never own a slave, the reasons are less clear, and not easily identified, but please do not buy into the " inside every southerner is a slave holder trying to get out...that's bologna. Perhaps they didn't like the heavy handed over reach of the Federal Government.

There were other issues facing the southern states as well, such as tariffs, and trade restrictions that were choking the life out of poor southern farmers, who, probably dressed worse, ate worse, and worked more hours than most enslaved persons.

Lastly, not all slave owners were cruel to their slaves, most did not abuse them, rape them, lash them, or separate their families. Slaves were the economic engine that drove the southern states. Additionally, the average northern citizen could care less about the institution of slavery, which is why we allowed five slave holding states to remain in the union and carry on as normal.

Succession was a complex issue, no one reason can explain it all.

 

[Fervent]

As far as the slavery issue goes, it was the the #1 reason the Southern States succeeded, it was mentioned in every one of the states articles of succession, or other documents, it can't be ignored, without the slave issue there would have been a US Civil War.

That being said, this was the view of the Southern Governments, and the 7% of southern citizens that maintained enslaved persons. However, the 7% only applies to the actual slave holder, usually the "man of the house". But if you factor in the full number of persons residing in a slave holding household, who ordered the slaves around, and could inherent them as property, that number rises to about 30%.

The other 70% of Southern Citizens who had no slaves, and would likely never own a slave, the reasons are less clear, and not easily identified, but please do not buy into the " inside every southerner is a slave holder trying to get out...that's bologna. Perhaps they didn't like the heavy handed over reach of the Federal Government.

There were other issues facing the southern states as well, such as tariffs, and trade restrictions that were choking the life out of poor southern farmers, who, probably dressed worse, ate worse, and worked more hours than most enslaved persons.

Lastly, not all slave owners were cruel to their slaves, most did not abuse them, rape them, lash them, or separate their families. Slaves were the economic engine that drove the southern states. Additionally, the average northern citizen could care less about the institution of slavery, which is why we allowed five slave holding states to remain in the union and carry on as normal.

Succession was a complex issue, no one reason can explain it all.

Your last sentence says it all. Yes, all of the states mentioned slavery and it was the major fault line. If we're teaching children, slavery was the cause of the civil war. But I assume we're all adults here, so the analysis can go deeper. Slavery stands as the tip of the glaciar that stood above water, the visible issue that was a result of all of the underlying causes. The match that lit the tinderbox.

 

[parousia70]

Lastly, not all slave owners were cruel to their slaves, most did not abuse them, rape them, lash them, or separate their families. Slaves were the economic engine that drove the southern states.

Well, what on earth would anyone in that position have to complain about then? If they weren't abused, raped, beaten or separated form their families, they should just rejoice and be glad about their enslavement...

 

[Silverback]

Well, what on earth would anyone in that position have to complain about then? If they weren't abused, raped, beaten or separated form their families, they should just rejoice and be glad about their enslavement...

Because they were enslaved, and had no freedom, ask that question of someone working on a prison farm

 

[cow451]

You think the civil war was about slavery? Then how come it wasn't until the middle of it, when the north was looking like they were going to lose, that Lincoln declared the emancipation proclamation as a desperate attempt to get the southern blacks to defect? There were far more issues at hand than slavery. It's amazing how quick you lot are to try to paint someone as racist rather than engaging with arguments. Nothing more than an ad hominem.

And Northern states were the last to emancipate slaves.

 

[Aldebaran]

According to you, they were apparently able to fill 6 MILLION orders just fine:

That was before.
I just went to 2 different gun shops yesterday and was told the same thing by both. What they have in stock in all they have, and cannot place any more orders. That doesn't sound as if gun manufacturers are making big money like you seem to think. Something else is going on.

 

[Aldebaran]

As long as you see the protesting of systemic, racist police brutality as a bigger threat to our society than the violent armed insurrection aimed at overthrowing our federal government and executing our elected leaders, I submit it is you who show a lack of priority.

Oh please! There was no insurrection, armed or otherwise. Walking around in the House or Senate chamber and sitting down and reading what's on the desk didn't overthrow the government or execute a single person. You're just rehashing the same fantasy you've been fed from the news.

 

[parousia70]

Oh please! There was no insurrection, armed or otherwise. Walking around in the House or Senate chamber and sitting down and reading what's on the desk didn't overthrow the government or execute a single person. You're just rehashing the same fantasy you've been fed from the news.

Ok Q, whatever you say.

 

[cow451]

That was before.
I just went to 2 different gun shops yesterday and was told the same thing by both. What they have in stock in all they have, and cannot place any more orders. That doesn't sound as if gun manufacturers are making big money like you seem to think. Something else is going on.

They are selling everything they can make. They can’t make fires fast enough for the demand. Every industry would love to have that problem.

 

[Aldebaran]

Ok Q, whatever you say.

Well, name one politician who was executed.
Take your time....

 

[parousia70]

Well, name one politician who was executed.
Take your time....

What are you talking about? Nobody was executed, but, as i said, that was clearly the AIM of many, especially the ones shouting "Hang Mike Pence".

You seem to imply that when someone attempts to rob a bank, but they don't end up getting away with any money, it's "Oh well"... nobody got any money so no law broken...."

Thankfully our Justice department understands and upholds the actual Law.
Over 300 charged so far: What we know about the Capitol riot arrests

Over 300 in custody, 107 of them indicted by grand juries....

 

[Aldebaran]

What are you talking about? Nobody was executed, but, as i said, that was clearly the AIM of many, especially the ones shouting "Hang Mike Pence".

You seem to imply that when someone attempts to rob a bank, but they don't end up getting away with any money, it's "Oh well"... nobody got any money so no law broken...."

Thankfully our Justice department understands and upholds the actual Law.
Over 300 charged so far: What we know about the Capitol riot arrests

Over 300 in custody, 107 of them indicted by grand juries....

Shouting something actually means something? Ok, well here's someone else who shouted lots of things, and plenty of similar people acted upon it, and yet it's routinely excused by the very same people who just can't seem to stop obsessing over Jan. 6th.

“They need to hang you high. … they need to send you to the electric chair and let you fry like a piece of burnt bacon.”

“This is a war, guys … We’re getting ready to get armored up around here,” declared Letha Winston

“Your mother’s umbilical cord should have wrapped around your neck and choked you just the way you choked George Floyd, you filthy animal,”

 

[cow451]

Shouting something actually means something? Ok, well here's someone else who shouted lots of things, and plenty of similar people acted upon it, and yet it's routinely excused by the very same people who just can't seem to stop obsessing over Jan. 6th.

“They need to hang you high. … they need to send you to the electric chair and let you fry like a piece of burnt bacon.”

“This is a war, guys … We’re getting ready to get armored up around here,” declared Letha Winston

“Your mother’s umbilical cord should have wrapped around your neck and choked you just the way you choked George Floyd, you filthy animal,”

Nice try but threatening to hang an elected official is a legal problem. Especially when you have a few thousand along for the lynching.

Edit: Words have power. The Bible says so. Check Proverbs 21:23.

 

[Hvizsgyak]

Aldebaran, since our discussion is going nowhere, I'm no longer going to read or respond to your posts.

Sorry to differ with you pescador but I thought the discussion was going very well. There is alot to learn from Aldebaran's defending of our 2nd Amendment rights. Our founding fathers would have been right there with the Jan 6 rioters because of the way the whole 2020 election was handled and the the way the liberal news media covered it and the very bad ideas brought to light by the Democratic Party. Thank goodness we'll have changes for the better in the 2022 elections.