16 minutes ago, Dave Moss said:

Who said I was talking about legal gun ownership?  The right wing militia movement began in earnest after Ruby Ridge.  Randy Weaver wasn’t legally modifying guns though.

You’re all over the place 😄

1 hour ago, Alpha_TATEr said:

what does this have to do with legal gun ownership ?

and racism ? last i check wilson goode wasnt blonde haired and blue eyed. 

 

(maybe i missed part of the convo and im not following)

Everything is racist according to Moss

1 minute ago, DrPhilly said:

You’re all over the place 😄

Everything is racist according to Moss

i think dave got into my stash today. 

1 minute ago, Alpha_TATEr said:

i think dave got into my stash today. 

 

9 hours ago, Dave Moss said:

Yeah, I know.  But I’m telling you why it’s taboo.

Except its not

12 hours ago, NOTW said:

Regardless, the suggestion was the 2A is racist and your reply was about the people being scared of the black panthers 200 years later (people are scared of white militias too fwiw).

I believe the the intimation of the Tweet, and what Moss might've been trying (but failed) to articulate, is that Southerners during the American Revolution and Early Republic were incredibly fearful of slave uprisings. Personally, I really don't know how direct the connection is between that and passage of the Second Amendment, but I have read a good deal about it factoring into the minds of colonial leaders and early state governments. Great Britain used the threat of arming slaves as a way to terrorize Southerners during the Revolution. In one particular instance, I recall that Thomas Jefferson cut off aid to Toussaint L’Ouverture and subsequently refused to recognize Haiti's independence (which was brought on by a slave uprising), largely for fear of it inspiring similar upheavals in the United States. At a time where the U.S. had no standing army to speak of and internal security was largely left to state militias, the idea of keeping slaves in their place could very well have factored into notions about the "security of a free state."

3 hours ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

I believe the the intimation of the Tweet, and what Moss might've been trying (but failed) to articulate, is that Southerners during the American Revolution and Early Republic were incredibly fearful of slave uprisings. Personally, I really don't know how direct the connection is between that and passage of the Second Amendment, but I have read a good deal about it factoring into the minds of colonial leaders and early state governments. Great Britain used the threat of arming slaves as a way to terrorize Southerners during the Revolution. In one particular instance, I recall that Thomas Jefferson cut off aid to Toussaint L’Ouverture and subsequently refused to recognize Haiti's independence (which was brought on by a slave uprising), largely for fear of it inspiring similar upheavals in the United States. At a time where the U.S. had no standing army to speak of and internal security was largely left to state militias, the idea of keeping slaves in their place could very well have factored into notions about the "security of a free state."

During the American Civil War the U.S. army armed black men.  That didn’t work out so well at places like Fort Pillow (where black soldiers tried to surrender)

 

Also, during the Tulsa race riot the black people were armed.

What happened next?

 

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.history.com/.amp/news/black-panthers-gun-control-nra-support-mulford-act
 

 

 

 

 

you don’t say

Black militant group in Philadelphia called MOVE

 

 

oh, is that all?

Would you two just F and get it over with already?

Dave moss: the 2A is racist because of events that have nothing to do with when the 2A was written. 

Good job Davey boy. 

12 minutes ago, 20dawk4life said:

Dave moss: the 2A is racist because of events that have nothing to do with when the 2A was written. 

Good job Davey boy. 

Serious take in this - we need to be more vigilant about separating out fundamentally good policy that is abused by corrupt and/or immoral actors from just fundamentally bad policy.

For example, so much of what was enshrined in the Constitution was far ahead of its time and absolutely progressed free society in tremendous and measurable ways, even though it was written by slave owners who participated in some heinous acts. And some of what is in the Constitution was and has been perverted by racists and other immoral politicians by being unevenly dispensed among the population (for example, periods of time where 2A was seen as a white man's right and not for the black man, which did happen, and of which some echoes still exist)

When some right or privilege is unequally protected by government along racial/class/whatever lines, the default answer isn't to eliminate or curb that right or privilege for all but to equalize access.

All this said, I think it's naive to think there isn't a sizable and often loud minority of typically strong 2A supporters who would look with pride at modern militias geared up while wincing at visuals of black gun owners proudly open carrying in numbers. I wouldn't say it's a typical sentiment among strong 2A supporters, but it's there.

30 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

Serious take in this - we need to be more vigilant about separating out fundamentally good policy that is abused by corrupt and/or immoral actors from just fundamentally bad policy.

For example, so much of what was enshrined in the Constitution was far ahead of its time and absolutely progressed free society in tremendous and measurable ways, even though it was written by slave owners who participated in some heinous acts. And some of what is in the Constitution was and has been perverted by racists and other immoral politicians by being unevenly dispensed among the population (for example, periods of time where 2A was seen as a white man's right and not for the black man, which did happen, and of which some echoes still exist)

When some right or privilege is unequally protected by government along racial/class/whatever lines, the default answer isn't to eliminate or curb that right or privilege for all but to equalize access.

All this said, I think it's naive to think there isn't a sizable and often loud minority of typically strong 2A supporters who would look with pride at modern militias geared up while wincing at visuals of black gun owners proudly open carrying in numbers. I wouldn't say it's a typical sentiment among strong 2A supporters, but it's there.

Some people have a very hard time seeing the difference between root/foundation and partial symptom/result. That works in both a positive and negative direction depending on the starting point of the individual and can vary from one subject to the next. 

41 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

Serious take in this - we need to be more vigilant about separating out fundamentally good policy that is abused by corrupt and/or immoral actors from just fundamentally bad policy.

 

this. 

1 hour ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

Serious take in this - we need to be more vigilant about separating out fundamentally good policy that is abused by corrupt and/or immoral actors from just fundamentally bad policy.

For example, so much of what was enshrined in the Constitution was far ahead of its time and absolutely progressed free society in tremendous and measurable ways, even though it was written by slave owners who participated in some heinous acts. And some of what is in the Constitution was and has been perverted by racists and other immoral politicians by being unevenly dispensed among the population (for example, periods of time where 2A was seen as a white man's right and not for the black man, which did happen, and of which some echoes still exist)

When some right or privilege is unequally protected by government along racial/class/whatever lines, the default answer isn't to eliminate or curb that right or privilege for all but to equalize access.

All this said, I think it's naive to think there isn't a sizable and often loud minority of typically strong 2A supporters who would look with pride at modern militias geared up while wincing at visuals of black gun owners proudly open carrying in numbers. I wouldn't say it's a typical sentiment among strong 2A supporters, but it's there.

You mean to tell me that there are still racists? I am shocked. 

The constitution gives rights to citizens. Slaves were not citizens. Yes slavery is wrong but that doesn't change that they were not citizens, so the 2A did not apply to them. 

When someone tells you it's not a cult, show them this:

Liberals can literally be guilted into denying biological realities if mainstream ishlib orthodoxy demands it. DCotP.  

33 minutes ago, 20dawk4life said:

You mean to tell me that there are still racists? I am shocked. 

The constitution gives rights to citizens. Slaves were not citizens. Yes slavery is wrong but that doesn't change that they were not citizens, so the 2A did not apply to them. 

They became citizens in 1868 when the 14th Amendment was ratified.

49 minutes ago, 20dawk4life said:

You mean to tell me that there are still racists? I am shocked. 

The constitution gives rights to citizens. Slaves were not citizens. Yes slavery is wrong but that doesn't change that they were not citizens, so the 2A did not apply to them. 

I feel like you're argumentatively agreeing with me?

1 hour ago, 20dawk4life said:

You mean to tell me that there are still racists? I am shocked. 

The constitution gives rights to citizens. Slaves were not citizens. Yes slavery is wrong but that doesn't change that they were not citizens, so the 2A did not apply to them. 

So are you saying all amendments to the constitution do not apply then ??

 

1 hour ago, Dave Moss said:

They became citizens in 1868 when the 14th Amendment was ratified.

And when was the 2A written ?

59 minutes ago, downundermike said:

So are you saying all amendments to the constitution do not apply then ??

 

No. How did you come to that conclusion? 

1 hour ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

I feel like you're argumentatively agreeing with me?

Yea I guess. I don’t know what the entire point of your post was besides people are still racist. 

2 minutes ago, 20dawk4life said:

And when was the 2A written ?

No. How did you come to that conclusion? 

The second amendment was written in 1791.

The 14th amendment was passed in 1866 and states

{quote]Passed by Congress June 13, 1866, and ratified July 9, 1868, the 14th amendment extended liberties and rights granted by the Bill of Rights to former slaves.[/quote]

So if you are saying that the 2nd amendment doesn't apply to people who were not citizens at the time, even though the 14th amendment says otherwise, you are in essence saying that any amendments passed after the original bill of rights do not count.

2 minutes ago, 20dawk4life said:

Yea I guess. I don’t know what the entire point of your post was besides people are still racist. 

it was a meandering stream-of-consciousness post .. but basically I was trying to say that just because a particular right or policy has been used by corrupt or immoral people in the past to systematically disadvantage people from particular races/classes/backgrounds, it doesn't mean the right or policy itself is wrong. 

so while the right to bear arms has at times been selectively applied (even as recently as the 20th century) by certain local/state gov'ts to prevent blacks from exercising that right, it doesn't mean that the right itself is the issue. 

and we can also acknowledge that there are still some who would seek to use positions of power to try and limit or prevent black gun ownership while still supporting broadly the right to bear arms. 

I dunno if that makes sense.

7 minutes ago, downundermike said:

The second amendment was written in 1791.

The 14th amendment was passed in 1866 and states

{quote]Passed by Congress June 13, 1866, and ratified July 9, 1868, the 14th amendment extended liberties and rights granted by the Bill of Rights to former slaves.[/quote]

So if you are saying that the 2nd amendment doesn't apply to people who were not citizens at the time, even though the 14th amendment says otherwise, you are in essence saying that any amendments passed after the original bill of rights do not count.

i think the statements are getting mixed up. i believe he is saying that at the time, the 2A didn't apply to slaves, which is correct, but has since been changed. 

as another example, there's the tortured argument that because systemic racism has and is in some fashion a part of the existing power structures under a "capitalist" system here in the US, that it's somehow an argument that capitalism itself is evil and we should move to a more socialist system. same kind of thing: it's not capitalism that has caused a particular social problem, but individual people acting in sufficient enough numbers to have a measurable negative effect on the advancement of minorities. 

(we can certainly argue how big an impact systemic racism had, and still has, and what progress has been made vs what needs to be made, but this is just an example)

edited: wrong word.