Re: Gun Control means Crime Control
BeamMeUpScotty <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.congress,alt.politics.corruption,alt.censorship,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.election,alt.politics.misc,alt.politics.obama,alt.politics.scorched-earth,alt.politics.socialism.mao,alt.politics.trump,alt.global-warming,alt.conspiracy,alt.apocolypse,alt.politics.usa, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.infowars,alt.beam-me-up.scotty.there-is-no.intelligent-life.down-here,alt.politics.guns,alt.atheism |
|---|---|
| Organization | Support the "Propaganda Wars Open Source Project" to encourage less violence and hate inside America's Borders. |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 12/8/22 7:44 PM, Max Boot wrote: > On 12/8/2022 3:53 PM, [email protected] wrote: >> On Thu, 08 Dec 2022 08:07:15 -0600, !Jones <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On Wed, 7 Dec 2022 20:32:28 -0800, in talk.politics.guns Alan Bond >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> It is the consensus, scooter: the second amendment came about >>>> solely to protect >>>> slavery. >>> >>> I wouldn't call it a consensus, *yet*. It is certainly widely >>> accepted as a viable interpretation and is clearly gaining traction; >>> however, I would doubt that a preponderance of historians would be on >>> board. That's a different way of reading 2A than the commonly held >>> convention that it existed so that people could rise up and overthrow >>> the government... which is essentially what they tried in 1861. >> >> The second amendment did not come about SOLELY to protect slavery. > > As I have instructed you and others, the *motive* for the amendment was > purely slavery. The only function the militias served was as slave > patrols and to suppress slave rebellions. That's why the amendment > expressly mentions the militia. The slavers wanted to be sure they > could still have armed slave patrols. Which slave rebellions were snuffed out by the militia's when called in by their Governors, and were those Democrat governors or NOT? I vaguely remember the history about a States Guard being turned into the NATIONAL GUARD when it was NATIONALIZED to protect some BLACK kids at a School when the Democrat Governor refused to allow the black kids into a State taxpayer funded school and that ban of those kids violated the "equal protection clause" of the 14th Amendment whereby States are limited to equal protection of the laws. That was a Democrat Governor as I recall who was violating the equal protection clause? And NOT a Democrat U.S. President who supported that equal protection clause. Democrats have a History of IGNORING the limits placed on the government when it comes to interpreting the U.S. Constitution don't they? -- -Reality Matters-