6 minutes ago, Longcut said:

The Constitution was written in 1787. Slavery wasn't a concern. Since blacks were not allowed to own firearms.

Really, there were no slave rebellions before then?

• Gloucester County, Virginia Revolt (1663)
• New York Slave Revolt of 1712.
• Samba Rebellion (1731)
• Stono Rebellion (1739)
• New York Slave Insurrection of 1741

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_colonial_United_States

And even slaves in rebellion would still be law abiding enough not to possess firearms?

And why do you think slaves were prohibited from owning firearms? For their own protection? 

4 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Where did you come up with that idea. The reason for the 2nd amendment is stated right in the Amendment: 

“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It's all about a well regulated militia.  This was in the days before police and before standing armies. Nothing at all to do with your nonsense about an oppressive government. A militia was useful when certain freedom loving Americans decided to rebel because of an imposition of a tax on whiskey. Actually one of the main uses of militias was to suppress certain freedom loving people from rebelling. You know, the slaves.

Actually that is not true. The second amendment was ratified (1791) two years after the US Marshals service and the US Army were both established and a full 40 years after the Philadelphia city police were established. 

19 minutes ago, Longcut said:

The Constitution was written in 1787. Slavery wasn't a concern. Since blacks were not allowed to own firearms.

And by the way, while the Constitution may have been written in 1787 and ratified in 1788. the bill of rights was not ratified until 1791. And the 2nd Amendment is part of the bill of rights. You should be somewhat careful of challenging others on their knowledge of history.

And why wasn't slavery a concern? It was a concern when it came to the the electoral process. That is embodied in the Constitution.

6 minutes ago, mogandave said:

Actually that is not true. The second amendment was ratified (1791) two years after the US Marshals service and the US Army were both established and a full 40 years after the Philadelphia city police were established. 

After the war the Continental Army was quickly disbanded as part of the American distrust of standing armies, and irregular state militias became the new nation's sole ground army, with the exception of a regiment to guard the Western Frontier and one battery of artillery guarding West Point's arsenal. However, because of continuing conflict with Indians, it was soon realized that it was necessary to field a trained standing army. The first of these, the Legion of the United States, was established between June and Nov. 1792 at Fort Lafayette, Pennsylvania, under Major Gen. "Mad" Anthony Wayne.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_Army#Early_national_period_(1783–1812)

So the US army was created after and it was not active in the 13 new states. As the article notes, there was a huge distrust of standing armies. The Americans had seen the consequences of such armies in Europe. 

As for the Marshall's service, what would it have to do with suppressing slave rebellions? It wasn't until 1850 that that were tasked with apprehending fugitive slaves? And how many were there in the few years after it was created? I'm guessing not many.

14 hours ago, mogandave said:

It is interesting that the same people that call Trump a tyrant, want to take away the only means of resistance the citizenry has to a tyrant. 

How interesting... you think violence is the only means of resistance. Is that how women got the vote? Is that what MLK did?

 

I guess if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail... so just keep whacking away.

After the war the Continental Army was quickly disbanded as part of the American distrust of standing armies, and irregular state militias became the new nation's sole ground army, with the exception of a regiment to guard the Western Frontier and one battery of artillery guarding West Point's arsenal. However, because of continuing conflict with Indians, it was soon realized that it was necessary to field a trained standing army. The first of these, the Legion of the United States, was established between June and Nov. 1792 at Fort Lafayette, Pennsylvania, under Major Gen. "Mad" Anthony Wayne.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_Army#Early_national_period_(1783–1812)
So the US army was created after and it was not active in the 13 new states. As the article notes, there was a huge distrust of standing armies. The Americans had seen the consequences of such armies in Europe. 
As for the Marshall's service, what would it have to do with suppressing slave rebellions? It wasn't until 1850 that that were tasked with apprehending fugitive slaves? And how many were there in the few years after it was created? I'm guessing not many.

I thought we were talking about the second amendment. You implied it was only for a militia, and claimed it was before there was police or an army, clearly that wasn’t true.

Now you can go on and on about slave rebellions and whatnot, but it does not change the facts.

How interesting... you think violence is the only means of resistance. Is that how women got the vote? Is that what MLK did?

 

I guess if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail... so just keep whacking away.

 

You can deflect to MLK and women’s suffrage, but they were not protesting under a Tyrant.

 

See the difference? They had a right to protest which the would not have under a tyrant.

 

They also had guns...

1 minute ago, mogandave said:

You can defect to MLK and women’s suffrage, but they were not protesting under a Tyrant.

A govt can be as tyrannical as an individual, possibly more so. Is your position that the groups referred to were NOT being repressed by the govt?

3 minutes ago, mogandave said:

They also had guns...

Who?

A govt can be as tyrannical as an individual, possibly more so. Is your position that the groups referred to were NOT being repressed by the govt?

No, that was not my position.

Who?

MLK supporters and Women’s Suffrage supporters.

What does ANTIFA have to do the the poster’s assertion that arming oneself is the only way to resist a govt? Do you think he is an ANTIFA supporter?

Please don’t make up things and pretend it’s what I said.

How about a little intellectual honesty?

22 hours ago, Krataiboy said:

It's what happens when identity politics becomes the only game in town. Everybody gets dragged into the game and we all lose in the end.

It's not really about identity politics, which I grant you is pretty stupid. It's about a general coarseness that pervades everything now. One side gives license to the other, which they readily take hold of.  Here's an example:

 

"I Could Stand In the Middle Of Fifth Avenue And Shoot Somebody And I Wouldn't Lose Any Voters"

Response? Cheers.

 

 

 

 

58 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

I thought we were talking about the second amendment. You implied it was only for a militia, and claimed it was before there was police or an army, clearly that wasn’t true.

Now you can go on and on about slave rebellions and whatnot, but it does not change the facts.

 

There were police in Philadelphia. What does that have to do with slave rebellions except those that might take place in Philadelphia?  Actually the bill of rights was composed and ratified before there was an army. And the US Marshall's service was not there to suppress slave rebellions. In addition, you're not taking into account that in the late 18th century there was no telegraph. So communications were slow. And moving an army would be slow work too.  Local militias would be necessary to keep order.

It's not really about identity politics, which I grant you is pretty stupid. It's about a general coarseness that pervades everything now. One side gives license to the other, which they readily take hold of.  Here's an example:
 

"I Could Stand In the Middle Of Fifth Avenue And Shoot Somebody And I Wouldn't Lose Any Voters"

Response? Cheers.
 
 
 
 

Or when some says f-Tump and gets a standing o?

Or calls the President a mother f’r on tv?

Or calls half the country deplorable?

Or says republicans want to starve children ?

Or want to fundamentally transform the country?

You mean like that?

I don't like white nationalism.  I don't like any kind of terrorism.  But.  The FBI is running a political stings against Presidents instead of doing their job.  It's no wonder there are mass shootings.  The fault lies with the FBI.   Somebody tell them to get to work and stop trying to launch political careers.  

There were police in Philadelphia. What does that have to do with slave rebellions except those that might take place in Philadelphia?  Actually the bill of rights was composed and ratified before there was an army. And the US Marshall's service was not there to suppress slave rebellions. In addition, you're not taking into account that in the late 18th century there was no telegraph. So communications were slow. And moving an army would be slow work too.  Local militias would be necessary to keep order.

I’m not clear what slave rebellions have to do with the the discussion.

You said the second amendment predated a standing army and the police.

That is simply not true.

On ‎8‎/‎5‎/‎2019 at 6:13 PM, bendejo said:

Those who do not work spend their days taking intoxicants  and screwing.  (sound like Pattaya?)

Does the government provide the screwee? If so sounds like a great deal. Drugs to forget what a <deleted> life we have, and loads of sex. Choice!

Meanwhile back to the OP, do the Dems have a realistic solution  that does not involve confiscating everyone's weapons?

15 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

Or when some says f-Tump and gets a standing o?

Or calls the President a mother f’r on tv?

Or calls half the country deplorable?

Or says republicans want to starve children ?

Or want to fundamentally transform the country?

You mean like that?

 

 

I disagree with that comment about deplorables.

A post containing unsubstantiated claims has been removed as well as a reply. 

35 minutes ago, marcusarelus said:

I don't like white nationalism.  I don't like any kind of terrorism.  But.  The FBI is running a political stings against Presidents instead of doing their job.  It's no wonder there are mass shootings.  The fault lies with the FBI.   Somebody tell them to get to work and stop trying to launch political careers.  

Yes, it's the FBI's fault!! Right.........OK, glad that's settled.

Attention to all posters on this thread:

The FBI is to blame for all the mass shootings so no need to discuss this any further!

 

On 8/5/2019 at 1:13 PM, bendejo said:

It could be argued that a step in that direction is the universal basic income US candidate Yang proposes. 

On the other hand the US is leaving the business of exporting agricultural products and DT is giving the farmers billions to sustain them.  Is this the beginning of a derelict class?  Notice you hear of NO GOP hand-wringing about "where is the money coming from?" which is their usual outrage.  Even if he gets removed from the WH it's not like agricultural trade is going to return to what it was, at least not quickly.

So yeah, society needs less workers, so what to do with those people who aren't needed?

 

There is a sci-fi book called Beggars in Spain (lousy title, it involves neither of those things) by Nancy Kress.  (sci-fi as in Brave New World, as opposed to, say, Star Wars)  In the near future the socio-economic order in the US is you can decide not to work, and the gov't will support you sufficiently but not opulently, or you can chose an education and go on to have a profession, pursue business and wealth, up to you.  Those who do not work spend their days taking intoxicants  and screwing.  (sound like Pattaya?)

 

 

Soylent Green comes to mind, the book (Make Room! Make Room!) by Harry Harrison was better than the movie.

Nice to see Snopes confirm the Ohio shooter was an unhinged leftist and supporter of Elizabeth Warren. In the interests of fair and balanced arguments the democrats will now harangue themselves and Elizabeth Warren for having inspired one of the 2 acts of senseless violence this thread is about, right? 

 

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/dayton-shooter-warren/

8 minutes ago, TopDeadSenter said:

Nice to see Snopes confirm the Ohio shooter was an unhinged leftist and supporter of Elizabeth Warren. In the interests of fair and balanced arguments the democrats will now harangue themselves and Elizabeth Warren for having inspired one of the 2 acts of senseless violence this thread is about, right? 

 

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/dayton-shooter-warren/

 

2 hours ago, Becker said:

Yes, it's the FBI's fault!! Right.........OK, glad that's settled.

Attention to all posters on this thread:

The FBI is to blame for all the mass shootings so no need to discuss this any further!

I never said that.  You are not telling the truth again.  

 

Attention all posters Becker is not my representative.  I said the FBI should work on Domestic Terrorism and stop messing around with politics.  

4 hours ago, mogandave said:

No, that was not my position.

 

Then what was the point?

12 minutes ago, TopDeadSenter said:

Nice to see Snopes confirm the Ohio shooter was an unhinged leftist and supporter of Elizabeth Warren. In the interests of fair and balanced arguments the democrats will now harangue themselves and Elizabeth Warren for having inspired one of the 2 acts of senseless violence this thread is about, right? 

 

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/dayton-shooter-warren/

No and any logical person understands the reason. 

The Dayton shooting was not a terrorist incident.

The El Paso shooting was. 

Terrorism needs to have a POLITICAL motivation by definition

The El Paso shooter clearly did have such a motivation.

The Dayton shooter had political views but at least so far there is ZERO EVIDENCE that his crimes were motivated by those political views. 

4 hours ago, mogandave said:

MLK supporters and Women’s Suffrage supporters.

 

Please point me to mass shootings by those groups, I may have missed them.

A post containing a trolling representation of Trump's name has been removed. 

who would these policemen vote for?