Jump to content

The Miscellaneous Liberal\PC BS\Commie Gibberish\Clown World\Lame Hunt Jokes\Corporate Virtue Signaling Thread

Featured Replies

9 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.

That’s not how it works. 
 

at the time of the 2A slaves had no rights. So 1791-1866. When the 14th amendment passed they gained the rights of the 2A and all others in the constitution.

You can’t go back and say well slaves should have had the right at that time because in the future they were given the right. 

3 minutes ago, Alpha_TATEr said:

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. 

Ding ding. 

  • Replies 14.6k
  • Views 483.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Most Popular Posts

Posted Images

6 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

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.

Got it. Yea we agree. 

6 minutes ago, 20dawk4life said:

That’s not how it works. 
 

at the time of the 2A slaves had no rights. So 1791-1866. When the 14th amendment passed they gained the rights of the 2A and all others in the constitution.

You can’t go back and say well slaves should have had the right at that time because in the future they were given the right. 

I thought that was what you were saying, but reading back through the thread, I did not take it that way.

So just to be clear, now all people can own guns per the second amendment, regardless of color.

26 minutes ago, downundermike said:

I thought that was what you were saying, but reading back through the thread, I did not take it that way.

So just to be clear, now all people can own guns per the second amendment, regardless of color.

Of course

45 minutes ago, 20dawk4life said:

That’s not how it works. 
 

at the time of the 2A slaves had no rights. So 1791-1866. When the 14th amendment passed they gained the rights of the 2A and all others in the constitution.

Then what happened?

 

1239F292-39A0-4BA1-A4F3-F975927CFDD7.jpeg
 

oh…

12 minutes ago, Dave Moss said:

Then what happened?

 

1239F292-39A0-4BA1-A4F3-F975927CFDD7.jpeg
 

oh…

Yea. They were the ones breaking the law now. Not the 2A, the right is not racist. The right wasn’t written to be racist. You’re mixing up people’s actions with the law. People are scumbags. 

8 minutes ago, 20dawk4life said:

Yea. They were the ones breaking the law now. Not the 2A, the right is not racist. The right wasn’t written to be racist. You’re mixing up people’s actions with the law. People are scumbags. 

The law doesn’t mean a whole lot when the local politicians and judges are the ones in the KKK.

Best Stop It Matt GIFs | Gfycat

On 7/2/2021 at 12:03 PM, paco said:

This is a very strange hill to die on.

 

39 minutes ago, Dave Moss said:

The law doesn’t mean a whole lot when the local politicians and judges are the ones in the KKK, and owned people as property

FYP

kelki5x40ld71.png

1 hour ago, Dave Moss said:

The law doesn’t mean a whole lot when the local politicians and judges are the ones in the KKK.

Doesn’t make the law racist. It’s still the people. 

So, if the second amendment is racist because it was written at a time when black men were not free men in this country thus meaning the amendment was not written with them in mind, does that make all of the bill of rights racist?....

7 hours ago, BFit said:

So, if the second amendment is racist because it was written at a time when black men were not free men in this country thus meaning the amendment was not written with them in mind, does that make all of the bill of rights racist?....

Everything is racist dude. Get with the program. Munson won. 

10 hours ago, BFit said:

So, if the second amendment is racist because it was written at a time when black men were not free men in this country thus meaning the amendment was not written with them in mind, does that make all of the bill of rights racist?....

and you're a racist for not knowing it was racist because it was obviously racist. racist. 🙃

This is what the Supreme Court thought 70 years after the Constitution fwiw

 

25B22982-F975-40D9-A173-C3AA5B17BBB0.jpeg

For his……what ?

So antifa attacked a peaceful rally in Cali and got wrecked. Love to see it:

 

Forever Alone GIFs | Tenor

Anti Vaxxer Naomi Wolf Joins Trump’s Doomed Tech Suit

https://www.thedailybeast.com/anti-vaxxer-naomi-wolf-joins-donald-trumps-doomed-tech-suit

Quote

Former President Donald Trump’s legal crusade against big tech has a new ally: Naomi Wolf. The former Democratic campaign adviser, feminist advocate, and anti-vaccine conspiracy theorist has signed on as a co-plaintiff in the Trump-led social media lawsuit criticized as a doomed fundraising "stunt” by legal experts.

In an amended complaint filed in federal court on Wednesday, Wolf says that Twitter blew up her personal and professional life by sharing her public tweets containing bizarre vaccine misinformation to news organizations and that the suspension of her account caused her to lose "over half of her business model, investors in her business, and other sources of income.”

Aw, poor baby. Consequences bit your idiotic ass, did they?

Good.

 

 

Liberalism is a mental disorder exhibit 24,525,958

 

bYHSJal.jpg

11 minutes ago, paco said:

bYHSJal.jpg

:roll: I wonder how many will get this one

Although I think you posted it in the wrong thread? :lol: 

Create an account or sign in to comment