Wat's Guns-N-Stuff Thread

[coati]

I know this is a little rambly, but

No shit...

 

[JaySecrets]

Love, LOVE this admission by you.
The smell of fear on you is palpable.



A gracious welcome to the board! So glad you found this thread of mine and other righteous believers in preserving the sanctity of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I've highlighted an interesting line of thinking that you started and then suddenly just dropped. Please, continue. Take your time.

I'm not sure that there's much that needs to be added there. It's just a straight up fact. When slavery was ended, the southern Democrats were terrified of the blacks owning guns. The blacks owned guns that meant they had power in the South and the southern Democrats didn't want that. So they put gun control laws in place. Anybody can look up this bit of information. And these were the first gun control laws that this country ever had. There's actually a couple famous black revolutionaries in the immediate days after slavery who pushed back against the lynchings that were happening to their, And armed themselves in spite of the gun control laws. So gun control, like abortion, And like several other policies that the left tends to tout as wonderful and glorious and important, actually has its root in blatant racism and murder of minorities. This is a simple truth that is becoming so known that many blacks are leaving the Democrat party because they're finally finding out all the information.
That's the longer version of that, but it's essentially what I said earlier. Gun control is rooted in racism and hate. As is abortion. As are many of the civil Rights Acts that in fact made minorities more dependent on a government and told them that they weren't able to make it on their own that they had to have the governments help otherwise they couldn't make it in a racist world. So yes, gun control is rooted in racism.

 

[Philthy_Phil]

I'm not sure that there's much that needs to be added there. It's just a straight up fact. When slavery was ended, the southern Democrats were terrified of the blacks owning guns. The blacks owned guns that meant they had power in the South and the southern Democrats didn't want that. So they put gun control laws in place. Anybody can look up this bit of information. And these were the first gun control laws that this country ever had. There's actually a couple famous black revolutionaries in the immediate days after slavery who pushed back against the lynchings that were happening to their, And armed themselves in spite of the gun control laws. So gun control, like abortion, And like several other policies that the left tends to tout as wonderful and glorious and important, actually has its root in blatant racism and murder of minorities. This is a simple truth that is becoming so known that many blacks are leaving the Democrat party because they're finally finding out all the information.
That's the longer version of that, but it's essentially what I said earlier. Gun control is rooted in racism and hate. As is abortion. As are many of the civil Rights Acts that in fact made minorities more dependent on a government and told them that they weren't able to make it on their own that they had to have the governments help otherwise they couldn't make it in a racist world. So yes, gun control is rooted in racism.

Hey buddy. America was built upon the shoulders of racism.

 

[JaySecrets]

Hey buddy. America was built upon the shoulders of racism.

No my friend, The Democrat party was built on the shoulders of racism. The Republican party is literally the party of anti-slavery and anti-racism. That is the actual history of the Republican party.

And if you would read. Thomas Sowell, because he is brilliant and elegant and eloquent about it, You would find out that the majority of the founders were actually abolitionists... The ones that weren't, were ones who had slaves from their parents and grandparents foisted onto them and they were in that world for the first time in world history wrestling with the idea that slavery was wrong. Slavery was a worldwide institution up to that point. They were trying to end slavery in a sane way. In fact, they were slowly releasing their slaves into parts of the north where they would not have issues or be hassled. Oh and those same founders didn't want any new slavery introduced into the mix cuz they were trying to end it in a slow way that wouldn't create chaos, And so they made laws in Virginia calling for the arrest of anybody who dared try selling slaves off of ships coming into Virginia. So before you assume you know history, you might want to study it.

You just handed me a bumper sticker. Bumper sticker thinking is idiotic. If you can espouse your entire belief in two sentences, you're a moron.

 

[Bn2f]

I'm not sure that there's much that needs to be added there. It's just a straight up fact. When slavery was ended, the southern Democrats were terrified of the blacks owning guns. The blacks owned guns that meant they had power in the South and the southern Democrats didn't want that. So they put gun control laws in place. Anybody can look up this bit of information. And these were the first gun control laws that this country ever had. There's actually a couple famous black revolutionaries in the immediate days after slavery who pushed back against the lynchings that were happening to their, And armed themselves in spite of the gun control laws. So gun control, like abortion, And like several other policies that the left tends to tout as wonderful and glorious and important, actually has its root in blatant racism and murder of minorities. This is a simple truth that is becoming so known that many blacks are leaving the Democrat party because they're finally finding out all the information.
That's the longer version of that, but it's essentially what I said earlier. Gun control is rooted in racism and hate. As is abortion. As are many of the civil Rights Acts that in fact made minorities more dependent on a government and told them that they weren't able to make it on their own that they had to have the governments help otherwise they couldn't make it in a racist world. So yes, gun control is rooted in racism.

Be patient with me ok, I'm kinda slow, but I have a lot of questions from this post. Would you like more time be more specific on expounding on "the blacks"?

 

[JaySecrets]

Be patient with me ok, I'm kinda slow, but I have a lot of questions from this post. Would you like more time be more specific on expounding on "the blacks"?

Not quite sure what the question is here. In America, just like in the rest of the world, slavery had been happening to people who were easily captured. Not by the white slavers but by the black Muslims in Africa who then in turn sold them around the world. Well, slavery was also happening to whites bye fellow whites around the world in the cultures where they were the weak and the minority, but that's another part of History.

In the west, unlike in much of the world, someone who was black, ie someone who was from Africa, stood out because they looked different than everyone else.. they couldn't just take their family and disappear into the population and no one know that part of their history that scarred them and created damage in the community.

I really don't know what your question is here. Who were the blacks. That's kind of a weird question to ask.

 

[Bn2f]

Not quite sure what the question is here. In America, just like in the rest of the world, slavery had been happening to people who were easily captured. Not by the white slavers but by the black Muslims in Africa who then in turn sold them around the world. Well, slavery was also happening to whites bye fellow whites around the world in the cultures where they were the weak and the minority, but that's another part of History.

In the west, unlike in much of the world, someone who was black, ie someone who was from Africa, stood out because they looked different than everyone else.. they couldn't just take their family and disappear into the population and no one know that part of their history that scarred them and created damage in the community.

I really don't know what your question is here. Who were the blacks. That's kind of a weird question to ask.

"The blacks" that owned guns that were taken away from the southern democrats - what power did they wield with the power they had from owning funs?

 

[Bn2f]

How successful were the black revolutionaries who owned guns that stood up against lynchings?

 

[Bn2f]

If these laws of gun control were created by southern democrats to take away guns from the blacks -
where and what were there the instances of white republicans coming to their aid to fight against government tyranny? Fighting against government tyranny is being what you said the 2nd amendment is really about.

 

[JaySecrets]

If these laws of gun control were created by southern democrats to take away guns from the blacks -
where and what were there the instances of white republicans coming to their aid to fight against government tyranny? Fighting against government tyranny is being what you said the 2nd amendment is really about.

To answer the question the first post I couldn't re quote here, there were varying degrees of success by some of these revolutionaries. They are actually heroes in the black. I've been awed by the stories I've heard from the older of the black generations who remember their history on this. These people are sounding a whole lot like conservative militiamen. And many of them died for their cause. So please be careful how you go and approach that one.

As for the second question, having the arms, And having the weapons didn't mean that taking up arms against that government was the first resort. It was always the last resort. They wanted the government so terrified of their people that their people wouldn't have to take up arms against them. And there were whites that came alongside the blacks to help defend them... And they were typically abolitionists who were for the most part. Republicans.

But since the weapons were the warning to a government not to cross a line, And they were the last resort to be used, The Republicans and the conservatives of their day were wise enough to seek a different route of addressing issues before they went the hard route of overthrowing a government. Slavery was being ended. The crap was being dealt with. They didn't need to overthrow a government. They needed to address a problem in the system and in the culture. And they did that through education. They did that through policies that promoted growth.

And that's in part why you had a black Wall Street... Until the Democrats freaked out and burned it down and killed people.

I hope you're not proud of a Democrat party because it has an ugly, ugly history of racism, murder, and eugenics.

 

[Bn2f]

Do you believe in the constitution? Are all men created equal? Why blacks could not own guns from the moment they existed on this northern continent? Why did republicans nor democrats argue that this was a wrong against individual liberty?

 

[Bn2f]

I know of a man named John Brown fighting against government tyranny, but I can't recall how that ended. Do you have an example of Americans taking up arms to successfully repel and put the government back into its rightful place?

 

[JaySecrets]

Do you believe in the constitution? Are all men created equal? Why blacks could not own guns from the moment they existed on this northern continent? Why did republicans nor democrats argue that this was a wrong against individual liberty?

The problem is that you are viewing things through the lens of 20th century. That was not the world they lived in. And this isn't making excuses. This is just basic history.

In that world it was a world of conquest. There were the conquerors and the conquered. That's how it was. The conquered were enslaved, The conquerors won.

But something else was happening. There was also a push of application of quite frankly conservative Christian principals that were being applied from the West and asking questions about how you can justify slavery and this mentality of conqueror versus conquered and still hold a Christian worldview. These were questions that had never been asked on that scale before. These were the abolitionists.

Already in the British colonies. They were abolishing slavery at Great cost both to national treasure and to loss of lives of soldiers as they imposed the ending of slavery in the British colonies.

So you have this new country being formed by people who are wrestling with these questions and have residual wrong-headed thinking, at least with some of them, that they had handed down to them by their parents and their grandparents and their great-grandparents and their great great great great great, great, great and so on.

The question of slavery and the rights of blacks in America was the same question that was being wrestled with worldwide. The difference was the model of America was so unique and so different that the only way you could really address it, The way the abolitionists hoped to address it, was through legislative battles.

You couldn't end slavery if you didn't have a country. If you had the slave owning states not agreeing to be part of the country, you didn't have a country to end slavery.

So they built in legal contradictions that would both limit the power of the slave states (That's the 3/4 person or whatever that amendment was. I forget the exact number) because in doing that particular amendment it limited the number of representatives slave holding states would be able to have in Congress. They also understood the declaration of Independence as equally important as a founding document and built in contradictions that would clearly lay the case so that slavery could be ended in courts and in legislation. It didn't play out that way obviously, but that was what the goal was. That was the complicated issue of slavery then.

Don't bring a 20th century mindset to a a time in the 1700s and 1800s and say you're dealing honestly with history.

 

[JaySecrets]

I know of a man named John Brown fighting against government tyranny, but I can't recall how that ended. Do you have an example of Americans taking up arms to successfully repel and put the government back into its rightful place?

Of Brown's original twenty-two men, John H. Kagi, Jeremiah G. Anderson, William Thompson, Dauphin Thompson, Brown's sons Oliver and Watson, Stewart Taylor, Leeman, and free African Americans Lewis S. Leary and Dangerfield Newby had been killed during the raid.


That's as much as I could find on Google.... This is a part of history that really doesn't get a lot of coverage because well, when it came to blacks in the South, much of that history was written by the southern Democrats. But it does give you at least a start point to look up names and see where you can go from there.

 

[Chobham]

The problem is that you are viewing things through the lens of 20th century. That was not the world they lived in. And this isn't making excuses. This is just basic history.

In that world it was a world of conquest. There were the conquerors and the conquered. That's how it was. The conquered were enslaved, The conquerors won.

But something else was happening. There was also a push of application of quite frankly conservative Christian principals that were being applied from the West and asking questions about how you can justify slavery and this mentality of conqueror versus conquered and still hold a Christian worldview. These were questions that had never been asked on that scale before. These were the abolitionists.

Already in the British colonies. They were abolishing slavery at Great cost both to national treasure and to loss of lives of soldiers as they imposed the ending of slavery in the British colonies.

So you have this new country being formed by people who are wrestling with these questions and have residual wrong-headed thinking, at least with some of them, that they had handed down to them by their parents and their grandparents and their great-grandparents and their great great great great great, great, great and so on.

The question of slavery and the rights of blacks in America was the same question that was being wrestled with worldwide. The difference was the model of America was so unique and so different that the only way you could really address it, The way the abolitionists hoped to address it, was through legislative battles.

You couldn't end slavery if you didn't have a country. If you had the slave owning states not agreeing to be part of the country, you didn't have a country to end slavery.

So they built in legal contradictions that would both limit the power of the slave states (That's the 3/4 person or whatever that amendment was. I forget the exact number) because in doing that particular amendment it limited the number of representatives slave holding states would be able to have in Congress. They also understood the declaration of Independence as equally important as a founding document and built in contradictions that would clearly lay the case so that slavery could be ended in courts and in legislation. It didn't play out that way obviously, but that was what the goal was. That was the complicated issue of slavery then.

Don't bring a 20th century mindset to a a time in the 1700s and 1800s and say you're dealing honestly with history.

You've swerved into a truth here. The "progressives" live in a perpetual time warp. Actions of today are assigned to motives of yesteryear and the actions of people of past centuries are adjudicated by the ethics of today. It's a temporal disconnect that they freely use to attempt to achieve moral superiority. To put it another way, historical context is totally lost on them.

I appreciate your efforts here and can only hope that there are others who are reading but not posting.

 

[Bn2f]

Very interesting. I've no more questions. You've educated me on a lot of things. I'll be sure to look and read up on this Sowell? Thomas is it? And just for clarification, it was 3/5ths. Slaves were counted as #/5ths a person. It's easy to forget - kinda like 40 acres and a mule.

 

[Bn2f]

I'm sorry - I was gonna call it a night, but I've got 1 more question - Do you think that Confederate monuments should be taken down?

 

[JaySecrets]

Very interesting. I've no more questions. You've educated me on a lot of things. I'll be sure to look and read up on this Sowell? Thomas is it? And just for clarification, it was 3/5ths. Slaves were counted as #/5ths a person. It's easy to forget - kinda like 40 acres and a mule.

But do you know why they were counted as 3/5 the person. It wasn't because they were seen as less, was an effort to lessen the power of the southern Democrats. That number only existed in the context of the census. The census is what determined how many representatives the House of Representatives gets. If the southern states were able to count all their slaves as full people... And in that case there were certain states where the slaves outnumbered the slave owners... They would have so much power in the House of Representatives that no abolitionist bill would ever get through. So the founders put in place the Three-Fifths person rule to protect the blacks because they were trying to get abolitionist bills through.

 

[JaySecrets]

I'm sorry - I was gonna call it a night, but I've got 1 more question - Do you think that Confederate monuments should be taken down?

No, I don't for two reasons...

One the primary reason for the civil war was not slavery. It was an issue. It was not the issue. Just like it wasn't about states rights like the people in the South were told it was. It was about money and power. That's a whole nother ball of wax that there isn't time to get to right now.

Number two, You don't take down monuments and representations of the past. This is part of History. And there were good men on both sides of that war. There were men who were generals who Have monuments built to them in the Confederacy, who did not believe in slavery. Robert E. Lee was not a fan of slavery. He simply loved the South warts and all. Read a biography of that man that hasn't been written by some biased liberal who believes that they can paint everybody with a broad brush.

When you take down monuments about history, then you will end up forgetting history and you will continue to repeat the mistakes of that history. So should those monuments come down? Absolutely not. Instead, they should be used to spark, honest, unbiased conversations about those people and that history those monuments represent.

 

[JaySecrets]

And yes it's Thomas Sowell. He is a black historian and economist, And quite frankly, one of the most brilliant minds out there

 

[Bn2f]

I am guilty of applying a 1700 type mindset into this century. Sorry.
Could you tell me the racist democrats who are fighting today to keep confederate monuments in place?

 

[JaySecrets]

You've swerved into a truth here. The "progressives" live in a perpetual time warp. Actions of today are assigned to motives of yesteryear and the actions of people of past centuries are adjudicated by the ethics of today. It's a temporal disconnect that they freely use to attempt to achieve moral superiority. To put it another way, historical context is totally lost on them.

I appreciate your efforts here and can only hope that there are others who are reading but not posting.

I'm not going to engage in lengthy debate with the hardcore knuckleheads. They already have drank the Kool-Aid and are far gone. Well I hope happens when I just give a broad overview of the actual history and facts of an issue... And as you might have guessed from how I phrase it, I have done my homework... Is that maybe somebody who is willing to think critically and analyze facts will at least consider a position that's supported by truth. That might be one that they're not used to hearing. They don't need to agree with everything I say or every position I hold. I'm just trying to challenge the thought and hopefully bring about a little bit of critical thinking and depth of thought instead of bumper sticker policies and politics.

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

To answer the question the first post I couldn't re quote here, there were varying degrees of success by some of these revolutionaries. They are actually heroes in the black. I've been awed by the stories I've heard from the older of the black generations who remember their history on this. These people are sounding a whole lot like conservative militiamen. And many of them died for their cause. So please be careful how you go and approach that one.

As for the second question, having the arms, And having the weapons didn't mean that taking up arms against that government was the first resort. It was always the last resort. They wanted the government so terrified of their people that their people wouldn't have to take up arms against them. And there were whites that came alongside the blacks to help defend them... And they were typically abolitionists who were for the most part. Republicans.

But since the weapons were the warning to a government not to cross a line, And they were the last resort to be used, The Republicans and the conservatives of their day were wise enough to seek a different route of addressing issues before they went the hard route of overthrowing a government. Slavery was being ended. The crap was being dealt with. They didn't need to overthrow a government. They needed to address a problem in the system and in the culture. And they did that through education. They did that through policies that promoted growth.

And that's in part why you had a black Wall Street... Until the Democrats freaked out and burned it down and killed people.

I hope you're not proud of a Democrat party because it has an ugly, ugly history of racism, murder, and eugenics.

It’s hard to take anything you say about history seriously when you don’t even know the name of the largest and oldest political party in America.

 

[Greylag]

No, I don't for two reasons...

One the primary reason for the civil war was not slavery. It was an issue. It was not the issue. Just like it wasn't about states rights like the people in the South were told it was. It was about money and power. That's a whole nother ball of wax that there isn't time to get to right now.

Number two, You don't take down monuments and representations of the past. This is part of History. And there were good men on both sides of that war. There were men who were generals who Have monuments built to them in the Confederacy, who did not believe in slavery. Robert E. Lee was not a fan of slavery. He simply loved the South warts and all. Read a biography of that man that hasn't been written by some biased liberal who believes that they can paint everybody with a broad brush.

When you take down monuments about history, then you will end up forgetting history and you will continue to repeat the mistakes of that history. So should those monuments come down? Absolutely not. Instead, they should be used to spark, honest, unbiased conversations about those people and that history those monuments represent.

Glad there are people your side of the Atlantic who feel this way too about history. It’s not there to change or forget just because it doesn’t suit your current morals or political position. We get the same thing. My hobby horse is people who denigrate our second world war heroes. They did what they did so we have today. There mothers didn’t hide under the stairs when Hitlers bombers reeked destruction on Liverpool or get blown across the room as a 6 year old.

Well said!

 

[JaySecrets]

I am guilty of applying a 1700 type mindset into this century. Sorry.
Could you tell me the racist democrats who are fighting today to keep confederate monuments in place?

That is such a loaded and biased question. The racist Democrats of today know how to play the game. They put up the front of opposing The monuments.... While at the same time protecting the open racist and klan members in their own ranks.... Because it's not about taking down some racist monument. It's about dividing people against each other according to skin color. It's about creating division by creating a false narrative of oppressor and oppressed when in reality in today's world, those issues have been addressed and if you work hard and you do the right thing, it may be hard. It may be long to do it, but you can actually succeed and it doesn't matter what your ethnicity is. But they train people to play the victim card and they point at those monuments and say see. They hate you. It is sickening and it is a old tactic that was used by the Communist socialist even in the days of the Communist manifesto when it was written. You divide people whether it be by Rich or poor or by ethnicity or religion or find something. You can divide them by and inflame that division and then stand back and watch it all blow up and then once the chaos is there step in and impose a socialist mindset. Enslave the people by inciting them to enslave themselves.

It is indeed the Democrats who are openly trying to divide this country and they're using skin color to do it. That is in fact one of the very basic definitions of racism.