HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » The Second Amendment was ...

Thu Feb 6, 2014, 08:58 AM

 

The Second Amendment was Ratified to Preserve Slavery

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."

http://truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery

47 replies, 5795 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 47 replies Author Time Post
Reply The Second Amendment was Ratified to Preserve Slavery (Original post)
SecularMotion Feb 2014 OP
gejohnston Feb 2014 #1
SecularMotion Feb 2014 #5
gejohnston Feb 2014 #7
SecularMotion Feb 2014 #8
gejohnston Feb 2014 #12
SecularMotion Feb 2014 #16
gejohnston Feb 2014 #18
SecularMotion Feb 2014 #20
gejohnston Feb 2014 #22
SecularMotion Feb 2014 #23
gejohnston Feb 2014 #25
lastlib Feb 2014 #13
gejohnston Feb 2014 #15
hack89 Feb 2014 #2
Straw Man Feb 2014 #3
DonP Feb 2014 #4
SecularMotion Feb 2014 #6
sarisataka Feb 2014 #11
Lizzie Poppet Feb 2014 #9
SecularMotion Feb 2014 #10
gejohnston Feb 2014 #19
SecularMotion Feb 2014 #21
gejohnston Feb 2014 #24
SecularMotion Feb 2014 #26
gejohnston Feb 2014 #27
Lizzie Poppet Feb 2014 #30
X_Digger Feb 2014 #14
Lizzie Poppet Feb 2014 #37
Boom Sound 416 Feb 2014 #17
discntnt_irny_srcsm Feb 2014 #28
geckosfeet Feb 2014 #29
discntnt_irny_srcsm Feb 2014 #31
friendly_iconoclast Feb 2014 #32
SecularMotion Feb 2014 #33
sked14 Feb 2014 #34
SecularMotion Feb 2014 #35
sked14 Feb 2014 #36
SecularMotion Feb 2014 #38
sked14 Feb 2014 #39
SecularMotion Feb 2014 #40
NYC_SKP Feb 2014 #42
sked14 Feb 2014 #43
gejohnston Feb 2014 #44
oneshooter Feb 2014 #41
blueridge3210 Feb 2014 #46
friendly_iconoclast Feb 2014 #47
AtheistCrusader Feb 2014 #45

Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Thu Feb 6, 2014, 09:48 AM

1. quite old and quite discredited

First off, those who opposed slavery also supported the second amendment. Second, it was and is intended to be an individual right. Slave patrols were not part of the militia, they were part of the police system.

This article argues that James Madison wrote the Second Amendment to assure his constituents in Virginia, and the South as a whole, that the federal government could not disarm the state militia, which were the prime instruments for slave control in the South.
Did he provide evidence of this letter to the slave holders of Virginia? No. I guess it was so well hidden that historians could not find until one day a tort lawyer found them.
Also, every state was required to have a militia and there was an individual mandate for each male of age to buy his own gun.

Roger I. Roots pointed out in his article “The Approaching Death of the Collective Right Theory of the Second Amendment,” in the Fall 2000 edition of the Duquesne Law Review
[A]ccording to Bogus, the. . . Second Amendment was an avenue for Southerners and Anti-Federalists, who had lost out in the overall design of the Constitution, to assert a buffer provision against the military power of the federal government. Unfortunately for this line of reasoning, a secret or “hidden” history is neither binding nor helpful in interpreting a constitutional provision. Nor is it nearly as clear, as Bogus suggests, that slavery supporters cowed at stating their support openly during the ratification debates. The Constitution does, after all, contain slavery provisions that were expressed (and thus “unhidden”) in the text — albeit in stifled wording. While these slavery provisions may contain “inscrutable language that the people could not readily understand,” they nonetheless were understood by people of the Founders’ era as slavery provisions. Bogus’s own writings yield scant primary evidence (which would be needed to take his argument on its face) of either any similar understanding regarding the Second Amendment or any secret correspondence among slavery supporters evidencing the notion that the Second Amendment was intended to enable slave states to obstruct the federal government should abolitionists ever gain control of it.



Basically Bogus wrote a shill piece for VPC and Thom Hartman took it seriously.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #1)

Thu Feb 6, 2014, 11:07 AM

5. Is this the same Roger Roots?

 

100 Facts About Black People By Roger Roots

FACT #1: The White race has crossed seas, harnessed rivers, carved mountains, tamed deserts, and colonized the most barren icefields. It has been responsible for the invention of the printing press, cement, the harnessing of electricity, flight, rocketry, astronomy, the telescope, space travel, firearms, the transistor, radio, television, the telephone, the light-bulb, photography, motion pictures, the phonograph, the electric battery, the automobile, the steam engine, railroad transportation, the microscope, computers,and millions of other technological miracles. It has discovered countless medical advances, incredible applications, scientific progress, etc. Its members have included such greats as Socrates, Aristotle, Plato, Homer,Tacitus, Julius Ceaser, Napoleon, William the Conqueror, Marco Polo, Washington,Jefferson, Hitler, Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Magellan, Columbus, Cabot, Edison,Graham Bell, Pasteur, Leeuwenhoek, Mendel, Darwin, Newton, Galileo, Watt, Ford, Luther, Devinci, Poe, Tennyson, and thousands upon thousands of other notable achievers. (37) (39)

FACT #2: Throughout 6,000 years of recorded history, the Black African Negro has invented nothing. Not a written language, weaved cloth, a calendar, a plow, a road, a bridge, a railway, a ship, a system of measurement, oreven the wheel. (Note: This is in reference to the pure-blooded Negro.) He is not known to have ever cultivated a single crop or domesticated asingle animal for his own use (although many powerful and docile beasts abounded around him.) His only known means of transporting goods was onthe top of his hard burry head. For shelter he never progressed beyond thecommon mud hut, the construction of which a beaver or muskrat is capable.(21) (39)

http://respectableracist.blogspot.com/2012/04/100-facts-about-black-people-by-roger.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #5)

Thu Feb 6, 2014, 11:17 AM

7. No.

My guy is a respected criminologist and law professor who co founded the Wall of Tolerance with Rosa Parks. I have no idea who this asshole is. Most likely it is a pen name for the blogger.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #7)

Thu Feb 6, 2014, 11:25 AM

8. It's the same guy

 

Report of the Committee on Character and Fitness Regarding Roger Roots

Roger Roots is a recent graduate of Roger Williams Law School and an applicant for admission to the Rhode Island Bar. Mr. Roots has a problematic history which has necessitated an investigation and a hearing into his moral character and fitness as required by Article II, Rule 3. On the one hand, Mr. Roots has an exemplary record in college and in law school.   On the other hand, for a period of some five years ending in 1990, he exhibited gross disrespect for the law, which disrespect was exacerbated by a stream of extremist writings, some of which have continued into the near past.   In large measure, resolution of Mr. Roots' candidacy boils down to a question of whether one should emphasize the pre-1991 Mr. Roots or the man who post-dates that period.   The issue is compounded by the First Amendment implications of considering content of his numerous political writings, some of which have attacked our system of laws and others of which have been on occasion blatantly racist.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ri-supreme-court/1001247.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #8)

Thu Feb 6, 2014, 12:48 PM

12. compare writing styles

http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/4am_exclus.pdf
Your guy's style is closer to a Jr. High term paper, or a talk radio pundit.
Even then, the writer's rhetoric does not show evidence that it is the same guy. For example what is "extremist views?"
Even if it were, the writer of the brief said he held those views when he was young, like late teens or early 20s. It is possible he grew up in a racist household and did not know better until he got out in the "real world". Such transformations are not that unusual. In fact, that is what the writer of the brief implies. If he were a racist why would he join Rosa Parks in building the wall? Even then, look up ad homonym fallacy.

Back to the substance. Slavery at the time was not unique to the south. There were slave revolts in New York during that era.
Some questions:
why hasn't this theory been taken seriously by historians?
why did the south generally have stricter gun control laws until the Civil Rights era?
since Bogus is a lawyer, not a historian, does the fact that he was on the board of Handgun Control Inc matter?
Does the fact that his article cites Michael Bellesiles and wrote a book with him damage the article's credibility?

http://www.amazon.com/Second-Amendment-Law-History-Constitutional/dp/1565846990/ref=la_B001K8KMXQ_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1391704939&sr=1-2

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #12)

Thu Feb 6, 2014, 01:41 PM

16. It certainly is the same Roger Root and he's a full-blown racist gun nut

 

Roots has focused his work and advocacy on three areas: the fully informed jury movement, the reestablishment of Fourth Amendment protections and the establishment of a fair and equal court system for all participants. He was a featured speaker at the 2002 Nevada State Libertarian Party Convention and at the 2008 National Libertarian Party Convention in Denver, Colorado. Dr. Roots is a founding member of the Wall of Tolerance, co-founded by Rosa Parks, whose courageous stand against authoritarian government in 1955 showed millions of others how to resist government by simply saying no.

http://vote-mt.org/intro.aspx?state=mt&id=mtrootsroger

Criminal Record.   The file discloses many arrests and convictions while Mr. Roots led a basically itinerant life in Florida and other southern states.   These occurred when Mr. Roots was young, in some cases in his teens.   As the majority of the Committee has noted in its deliberations, taken individually these matters may seem remote in time and relatively minor in severity.   However, the last conviction was for a felony, resisting arrest, and in his testimony Mr. Roots conceded that he knew or should have known that the conviction was a felony which would remain on his record if he did not complete his probation.   Mr. Roots then fled the jurisdiction and returned to Montana, his home state, and therefore did not complete his probation in Florida.   Despite that fact, Mr. Roots obtained numerous weapons the possession of which is prohibited, by federal law, to convicted felons.   Mr. Roots testified that he obtained these weapons at various times from various dealers, and that he was required to sign a form at each dealership attesting to the fact that he was not a convicted felon.   Each time Mr. Roots falsely replied “No” on the form, and concedes now that he probably knew at the time that the statement was false, and certainly knows it now.   It is also worth noting that these weapons were not ordinary handguns;  they consisted of an automatic pistol, an automatic rifle with at least 500 rounds, and an assault rifle commonly known as an AK47.

When Mr. Roots exhibited in a college class a homemade air gun that he constructed, the authorities, apparently knowing that he was a convicted felon, raided his dorm room and found the air gun and also the additional weapons.   Ultimately, Mr. Roots pleaded guilty to a single charge concerning the air gun, and the remaining charges were dropped.   He conceded in his testimony that the other weapons were present and were seized, and that possession of them violated the law as well as the weapon for which he pleaded guilty.   Mr. Roots then served time in federal prison, was released in 1993.   His probation ended in 1996, while he was in law school.

I believe that the series of convictions is a serious matter.   There was no good reason for Mr. Roots to possess such a number of high-powered weapons;  in fact, in his testimony before the Committee he could not come up with a coherent reason for purchasing the weapons.   Doing so knowingly as a convicted felon is inexcusable, in my view, and should be a bar to his becoming an attorney.

Truthfulness. Mr. Roots was untruthful in at least three areas.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ri-supreme-court/1001247.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #16)

Thu Feb 6, 2014, 01:51 PM

18. using the same writer twice doesn't do anything

and pointing out his work with Rosa Parks debunks your racist claim.
It still does not connect Roots with the name used on the blog. There is no evidence it is the same person.
Now, can you say anything to the substance of his critique of Bogus work?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #18)

Thu Feb 6, 2014, 02:02 PM

20. The biographical profile matches the writer of the paper you cited

 

NAME:
Roger I. Roots*

BIO:
* The author, Roger Isaac Roots, J.D., graduated from Roger Williams University School of Law in 1999 and
Montana State University-Billings (B.S., Sociology) in 1995. He is the founder of the Prison Crisis Project, a
not-for-profit prison and criminal justice law and policy think tank based in Providence, Rhode Island. He
owes a debt of gratitude to Duane Horton of Portsmouth, Rhode Island, for his thoughtful and laborious
proofreading efforts.

http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/death_collective_right_theory.pdf


And as far as the Rosa Parks connection, they seem to find common ground only on resistance of authority. I don't find any other evidence of his support for civil rights.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #20)

Thu Feb 6, 2014, 02:08 PM

22. I'm talking about the "respectable racest"

blog. You have not provided any evidence that Robert Roots has any connection to this post
http://respectableracist.blogspot.com/2012/04/100-facts-about-black-people-by-roger.html
If you compare the writing style and quality of the writing, they are not the same person.
The most you have is a brief claiming that he wrote some racist writings. That does not prove anything. For all we know the writer of the brief could have written it to discredit roots. It still could be the blogger's pen name, which is most likely.
A racist would not have worked with Parks, or any other African American, as an equal for any reason. That alone throws water on your claim.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #22)

Thu Feb 6, 2014, 02:54 PM

23. Here's a connection

 

Felony convictions, extremist past haunt Macon State professor

By many accounts, Roger Roots was a gifted scholar and well-qualified for his tenure-track teaching position at Macon State College.

Roots, who holds two graduate degrees and is working on a third, joined the middle Georgia school's social sciences department in August with an impressive resume. So when he was fired just two months later, he said officials unfairly held his controversial past against him.

In a termination letter dated Oct. 15, Macon State officials cited two felony convictions in Roots' that they claimed made him ineligible for employment by the University System of Georgia.

But Roots has said his firing was actually based on allegations of racist conduct.

The 37-year-old scholar has written for several fringe publications, some dating back more than 10 years. A Web search by The Macon Telegraph found articles purportedly by Roots that support the right-wing militia movement, deny the Holocaust and claim blacks are less intelligent than whites.

The Montana Human Rights Network, which opposes hate groups, has been following Roots since the early 1990s, said program director Ken Toole.

"If we thought that Roger Roots moved away from Montana, had an epiphany, and changed his mind (about his beliefs), we wouldn't be talking to you," Toole said.

The Southern Poverty Law Center, based in Montgomery, Ala., said Roots once claimed to be the leader of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan in Billings, Mont., and The Anti-Defamation League also has characterized Roots as an "extremist writer."

http://www.accessnorthga.com/detail-pf.php?n=157556

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #23)

Thu Feb 6, 2014, 03:15 PM

25. Since the copyright is this year

it doesn't show much. Still pretty flimsy, no author nor why it was even written. It doesn't fit the Accessga's format.
I look at the substance of what is written and try not to use logical fallacies.
I have to ask: is the substance of the argument important to you, or do you assume the validity by if you agree with the source? All of the progressive sites that mention it just link to Hartman's synopsis and throw in a couple of quotes without even mentioning the substance of what Bogus was saying.
Using that logic, when Thom Hartman and Mike Papantonio ranted about the White Horse Prophecy, should I have believed it even though I knew it was bullshit?

This stands out:
Roots was convicted in 1987 in Florida for resisting arrest with violence and received three years probation, and he later served 20 months in federal prison for a 1991 conviction in Wyoming for possessing an unregistered firearm, according to prison records.
I'm going to take it that the unregistered firearm was a NFA weapon since it was a federal court. Which begs the question, why didn't the feds and Wyoming charge him with being a felon in possession?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #1)

Thu Feb 6, 2014, 12:50 PM

13. the militia WAS the police system.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Thu Feb 6, 2014, 10:22 AM

2. How would have rejecting the 2A impact state slave patrols?

the states had the power, through the state constitutions, to protect the right for their citizens to keep and bear arms.

This is what the Virginia Constitutions has to say:

Section 13. Militia; standing armies; military subordinate to civil power.

That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.


Looks like Virginia had every legal justification they needed to keep slave patrols.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Thu Feb 6, 2014, 10:24 AM

3. "State" = the body politic.

But you knew that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Thu Feb 6, 2014, 11:02 AM

4. Scrapin' the bottom of the "Cut and Paste" barrel for this one

 

This was a golden oldie from Shares United too. In his fevered imagination it "supports" his position that the 2nd amendment became irrelevant at the end of the civil war.

Somehow the "logic" fails me that; "Armed slave patrols were the only reason for the 2nd amendment, therefore we need to make sure all the minorities in urban areas are disarmed".

I guess SCOTUS just hasn't caught up with Dr. Bogus' and your "brilliant" interpretation on the 2nd yet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Thu Feb 6, 2014, 11:11 AM

6. The first draft of the 2nd Amendment

 

His first draft for what became the Second Amendment had said: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country [emphasis mine]: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #6)

Thu Feb 6, 2014, 12:45 PM

11. I always liked that wording better

Affirming the Right at the beginning makes the meaning clear. By putting the subject at the end, following the prefatory clause can often cause misunderstanding if one is not familiar withh sentence structure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Thu Feb 6, 2014, 11:59 AM

9. Utter discredited nonsense.

 

Running out of material to spam the group with?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #9)

Thu Feb 6, 2014, 12:10 PM

10. Discredited by whom?

 

Do you have a link that doesn't lead to a right wing/libertarian site?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #10)

Thu Feb 6, 2014, 01:57 PM

19. but I do.

http://www.theroot.com/articles/politics/2013/01/second_amendment_slave_control_not_the_aim.html
He is even one of the few who buy into the collective rights theory.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #19)

Thu Feb 6, 2014, 02:06 PM

21. I found that link earlier

 

If you examine the website further, you'll find that it supports the black conservative viewpoint.

It's a right wing site.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #21)

Thu Feb 6, 2014, 03:08 PM

24. since I was more intrested in the substance of the writer's critique

I really didn't did that deep. Can you speak to the substance, or are you going to stick to logical fallacies?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #24)

Thu Feb 6, 2014, 03:29 PM

26. DU is a website for liberal and progressive opinions.

 

If need to use a radical right wing source to support your viewpoint, it doesn't belong here.

Edit: to remove "racist" which referred to the author you cited in post #1, not the black conservative website.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #26)

Thu Feb 6, 2014, 03:43 PM

27. the racist claim was pretty flimsy

I don't know how I would define libertarians, since there are at least two factions. Noam Chomsky by definition is a libertarian.
Since Bogus' article has been ignored by historians and legal scholars, I think proves my point more than anything else.

Since Bogus seems to be a fan of Edmund Burke, the founder of modern conservatism, that tells me he is a conservative.
http://www.carltbogus.com/edmund-a-blog

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #21)

Thu Feb 6, 2014, 05:05 PM

30. "poisoning the well"

 

Look it up...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Thu Feb 6, 2014, 12:53 PM

14. *yawn* Then why did the northern states duplicate an individual right to keep and bear arms?

In some of the states cases, they had the right in their state constitutions *before* the federal version.

Moronic tripe, easily dismissed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #14)

Fri Feb 7, 2014, 11:32 AM

37. *sound of crickets chirping*

 

Didn't figure you'd get an answer to that one...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Thu Feb 6, 2014, 01:42 PM

17. Bull Shit

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Thu Feb 6, 2014, 03:58 PM

28. Grasping at straws like this one...

...is doing wonders for your credibility.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Thu Feb 6, 2014, 04:02 PM

29. Can't believe I am seeing this mouth drool knuckle dragging drivel on DU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geckosfeet (Reply #29)

Thu Feb 6, 2014, 07:27 PM

31. I like your sig line

I like this quote as well:
"Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters." - Daniel Webster

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Fri Feb 7, 2014, 02:24 AM

32. The replies are thoughtful, but the OP has written us off as 'zealots'...

 

...who post "bullshit"- and who apparently were not expected to notice this
turd in the punchbowl:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12625693#post10

SecularMotion (4,069 posts) Response to CTyankee (Reply #7)

Thu Feb 6, 2014, 08:43 PM
10. It's like debating a creationist. You can't debate them, they're zealots.

You can only counter their bullshit with reality.


I wonder if they will be 'explaining' this to us...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #32)

Fri Feb 7, 2014, 07:11 AM

33. I was referring to gun lobbyists

 

Do you consider yourself a gun lobbyist?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #33)

Fri Feb 7, 2014, 11:05 AM

34. Judging by the context of your post,

 

no, you weren't, you were smacking members in this group.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sked14 (Reply #34)

Fri Feb 7, 2014, 11:16 AM

35. There certainly are some gun lobbyists who post in this group

 

but not all members who post in GC&RKBA are gun lobbyists.

Do you consider yourself a gun lobbyist?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #35)

Fri Feb 7, 2014, 11:21 AM

36. No I do not,

 

I'm more or less ambivalent about guns, I'm more into animals, particularly birds, but will on occasion, post about other topics.
I commented on yours because, after reading your post in the other group, it was pretty obvious you were talking about members here.
No disrespect intended.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sked14 (Reply #36)

Fri Feb 7, 2014, 11:36 AM

38. Yes, I was talking about members who are gun lobbyists.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #38)

Fri Feb 7, 2014, 11:40 AM

39. How do you know they're gun lobbyists?

 

Do you know them personally? All I see here are members who promote the right to keep and bear arms, I have yet to see in my short time on this site, anyone claiming to work as a lobbyist for the firearms industry.
There's a huge difference between promoting the 2A and being a lobbyist for the industry.
At least that's my perception.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sked14 (Reply #39)

Fri Feb 7, 2014, 11:55 AM

40. If you're "promoting the 2A" chances are you're a lobbyist

 

Democrats support gun ownership with reasonable regulations. If you're "promoting the 2A" and arguing against any regulations as an infringement of your "gun rights", you're a most likely a lobbyist or simply carrying water for the right wing.

[center]Right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation[/center]
We recognize that the individual right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans' Second Amendment right to own and use firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation. We understand the terrible consequences of gun violence; it serves as a reminder that life is fragile, and our time here is limited and precious. We believe in an honest, open national conversation about firearms. We can focus on effective enforcement of existing laws, especially strengthening our background check system, and we can work together to enact commonsense improvements--like reinstating the assault weapons ban and closing the gun show loophole--so that guns do not fall into the hands of those irresponsible, law-breaking few.
Source: 2012 Democratic Party Platform , Sep 4, 2012

[center]Reauthorize assault weapons ban, close gun show loophole[/center]
We will protect Americans’ Second Amendment right to own firearms, and we will keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists by fighting gun crime, reauthorizing the assault weapons ban, and closing the gun show loophole, as President Bush proposed and failed to do.
Source: The Democratic Platform for America, p.18 , Jul 10, 2004

[center]Strengthen gun control to reduce violence[/center]
Democrats passed the Brady Law and the Assault Weapons Ban. We increased federal, state, and local gun crime prosecution by 22 percent since 1992. Now gun crime is down by 35 percent. Now we must do even more. We need mandatory child safety locks. We should require a photo license I.D., a background check, and a gun safety test to buy a new handgun. We support more federal gun prosecutors and giving states and communities another 10,000 prosecutors to fight gun crime.
Source: 2000 Democratic National Platform as adopted by the DNC , Aug 15, 2000

http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/democratic_party_gun_control.htm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #40)

Fri Feb 7, 2014, 12:03 PM

42. Look. The DNC Party Platform is full of holes. ie, support for the Death Penalty is not cool.

 

And neither is another jackass assault weapons ban. Pointless.

http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Democratic_Party_Crime.htm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #40)

Fri Feb 7, 2014, 12:08 PM

43. Most members here support reasonable gun control initiatives,

 

but the AWB is a useless piece of legislature as it doesn't ban anything, it only bans certain features on rifles, how does that help?

Every post I've seen by 2A supporters here support Universal Background Checks.

I guess that President Obama is a lobbyist by your definition.

Fuck, I just knew I should've stayed out of this, when the hell will I learn to avoid gun threads?

I'd much rather talk about my dog and my 4 House Sparrows.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #40)

Fri Feb 7, 2014, 12:24 PM

44. I doubt there is anyone supporting no regulation

I haven't seen anyone suggesting we repeal the Gun Control Act or NFA here or anywhere else. Amend them, yes but not repeal them. The 1927 Miller Act, could be repealed because the GCA more than fixes what it attempted to do.
What is reasonable besides a weasel word? One person's reasonalbe is another person's bat shit crazy.
I think the Gun Control Act is generally reasonable. NFA as it deals with machine guns is reasonable, although regulating single shot rifles with 15 inch barrels in the same manner isn't. When it comes to short barreled shotguns and rifles, Canada and most of Europe is is laxer than we are.
What if someone defines "reasonable" as UBC added to what is federal law with some amendments? I think so
Is adopting UK, France, and New Zealand style restrictions on silencers reasonable? I think so
I also agree with the UK when it comes to 30 round magazines.

Nothing is either/or. Everything exists on a continuum. Reality isn't us/them, black/white, red/blue, or even different shades of gray or purple. The real word is Technicolor filled with nuance and complexity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sked14 (Reply #39)

Fri Feb 7, 2014, 11:58 AM

41. Circular can't tell the difference between a lobbyist and a hobbyist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oneshooter (Reply #41)

Fri Feb 7, 2014, 05:47 PM

46. That's funny right there. *snort* NT

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #35)

Fri Feb 7, 2014, 06:50 PM

47. Disagreeing with you does not make a poster a "gun lobbyist"

 

I support marriage equality. This does not make me a "gay rights lobbyist"
anyplace outside of Free Republic or the American Family Association website

As hard as this may be for you to hear, your perception of others' motives
may not, in fact, be accurate...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Fri Feb 7, 2014, 01:33 PM

45. Well, that explains non-slaveholding states not only ratifying it, but including it in the state con

stitution as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread