Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The biased Media vs Trump!
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
... says the person who wants people to produce ID in order to purchase a firearm, but not to vote?
Why do you always ignore the SCOTUS ruling on United States v. Emerson (2001)?
Seeing as you mentioned a Supreme Court Judgement, here's another one for you. Bear with me, you'll see where i am going with this.
DRED SCOTT, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
JOHN F. A. SANDFORD.
December Term, 1856
Mr. Scott, a 'negro' slave, sued in a bid to win his freedom. He was told that he could not sue in his bid for freedom because the Court refused to recognize negro's as citizens, regardless of their status as slave/free.
Why am i bringing this up?
Well, the original Constitution of the United States included the Three-Fifths compromise. Which, effectively, enshrined the right to bear slaves in the constitution.
In 2016, the very notion of owning a slave is abhorrent to people - regardless of their skin colour.
Yet, in 1789 slavery was not only widespread, but enshrined in the Constitution.
My point, as you may have guessed, is that a document framed in 1789 in a completely different era in history will have multiple anachronisms.
The 2nd Amendment had a very real, tangible purpose in 1791. A well-armed, regulated militia could indeed have a chance to overthrow a corrupt government or defend themselves against acts of aggression.
In 2016, gun ownership will not offer any citizen the opportunity to do so.
If the US government went rogue and you gathered together 300 of your best friends, armed yourselves with assault rifles, they could (if they chose) drop a nuke on your entire city and level it.
Your guns will do nothing.
The original meaning and purpose of the 2nd Amendment has long ceased. Guns are responsible for making killing people a lot easier than killing people with knives and baseball bats.
It's completely alien to me the zealous defence of the 2nd Amendment and, normally, it's undertaken by the Trump demographic - white, non-college-educated men seem to be most vocal about their right to guns.
Anyway, that's my 2 cents. I can see why you're voting for Trump
0 -
wonderfullife wrote: »Seeing as you mentioned a Supreme Court Judgement, here's another one for you. Bear with me, you'll see where i am going with this.
DRED SCOTT, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
JOHN F. A. SANDFORD.
December Term, 1856
Mr. Scott, a 'negro' slave, sued in a bid to win his freedom. He was told that he could not sue in his bid for freedom because the Court refused to recognize negro's as citizens, regardless of their status as slave/free.
Why am i bringing this up?
Well, the original Constitution of the United States included the Three-Fifths compromise. Which, effectively, enshrined the right to bear slaves in the constitution.
In 2016, the very notion of owning a slave is abhorrent to people - regardless of their skin colour.
Yet, in 1789 slavery was not only widespread, but enshrined in the Constitution.
My point, as you may have guessed, is that a document framed in 1789 in a completely different era in history will have multiple anachronisms.
The 2nd Amendment had a very real, tangible purpose in 1791. A well-armed, regulated militia could indeed have a chance to overthrow a corrupt government or defend themselves against acts of aggression.
In 2016, gun ownership will not offer any citizen the opportunity to do so.
If the US government went rogue and you gathered together 300 of your best friends, armed yourselves with assault rifles, they could (if they chose) drop a nuke on your entire city and level it.
Your guns will do nothing.
The original meaning and purpose of the 2nd Amendment has long ceased. Guns are responsible for making killing people a lot easier than killing people with knives and baseball bats.
It's completely alien to me the zealous defence of the 2nd Amendment and, normally, it's undertaken by the Trump demographic - white, non-college-educated men seem to be most vocal about their right to guns.
Anyway, that's my 2 cents. I can see why you're voting for Trump
The three-Fifths compromise did not protect or enshrine slavery in the constitution, it was in fact a method to give the slave states more power at the federal level, as the representation in Washington DC was based on census figures by counting slaves even as a fraction it gave the southern states mor clout in the House and in the electrol college.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
wonderfullife wrote: »Seeing as you mentioned a Supreme Court Judgement, here's another one for you. Bear with me, you'll see where i am going with this.
DRED SCOTT, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
JOHN F. A. SANDFORD.
December Term, 1856
Mr. Scott, a 'negro' slave, sued in a bid to win his freedom. He was told that he could not sue in his bid for freedom because the Court refused to recognize negro's as citizens, regardless of their status as slave/free.
Why am i bringing this up?
Well, the original Constitution of the United States included the Three-Fifths compromise. Which, effectively, enshrined the right to bear slaves in the constitution.
In 2016, the very notion of owning a slave is abhorrent to people - regardless of their skin colour.
Yet, in 1789 slavery was not only widespread, but enshrined in the Constitution.
My point, as you may have guessed, is that a document framed in 1789 in a completely different era in history will have multiple anachronisms.
The 2nd Amendment had a very real, tangible purpose in 1791. A well-armed, regulated militia could indeed have a chance to overthrow a corrupt government or defend themselves against acts of aggression.
In 2016, gun ownership will not offer any citizen the opportunity to do so.
If the US government went rogue and you gathered together 300 of your best friends, armed yourselves with assault rifles, they could (if they chose) drop a nuke on your entire city and level it.
Your guns will do nothing.
The original meaning and purpose of the 2nd Amendment has long ceased. Guns are responsible for making killing people a lot easier than killing people with knives and baseball bats.
It's completely alien to me the zealous defence of the 2nd Amendment and, normally, it's undertaken by the Trump demographic - white, non-college-educated men seem to be most vocal about their right to guns.
Anyway, that's my 2 cents. I can see why you're voting for Trump
Ah yes, the evil gun-toting racist republicans voting for Trump. Everyone likes a good myth, eh?
Let’s look at another bit of history…
On September 28, 1868, a mob of Democrats massacred nearly 300 African-American Republicans in Opelousas, Louisiana. The savagery began when racist Democrats attacked a newspaper editor, a white Republican and schoolteacher for ex-slaves. Several African-Americans rushed to the assistance of their friend, and in response, Democrats went on a “Negro hunt,” killing every African-American (all of whom were Republicans) in the area they could find.
When gun permits came into existence, they were often denied to blacks in the South (See Martin Luther King as an example).The NRA opposed these discretionary gun permit laws and proceeded to grant NRA charters to blacks who sought to defend themselves from Klan violence, including the great civil rights hero Robert F. Williams.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement