If you support the 2nd amendment you must be a racist. After the Heller decision the left have no more arrows in their quivers, so when all else fails play the race card. It’s all over the left blogosphere, that the 2nd amendment was added to the constitution to protect slave owners. If Thom Hartman, Danny Glover, and Carl T Bogus say it, it must be true.
Edit to add: Just who is Dr Carl T Bogus? From his own writings “I’m a dyed-in-the-wool liberal”.
Nationalreview.com
The Second 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.
I've HEARD that the real reason the Second Amendment was ratified, and why it says "State" instead of "Country" (it IS pretty obvious that the Framers knew the difference - see the 10th Amendment), was to preserve the slave patrol militias in the southern states, which was necessary to get Virginia's vote. I THINK that the Founders Patrick Henry, George Mason, and James Madison were pretty clear on that.
Several authors and writers have put forward this idea, and I agree with it....
[bluebox=:1npluic1]There... No more offending partial-quote[/bluebox:1npluic1]
So, are you saying the framers did NOT know the difference between "State" instead of "Country"?...You think it was an oversight?
The Second 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.
The real reason the Second Amendment was ratified, and why it says "State" instead of "Country" (the Framers knew the difference - see the 10th Amendment), was to preserve the slave patrol militias in the southern states, which was necessary to get Virginia's vote. Founders Patrick Henry, George Mason, and James Madison were totally clear on that . . . and we all should be too.
So, are you saying the framers did NOT know the difference between "State" instead of "Country"?...You think it was an oversight?
I know you are a stickler about sources, so could you tell us where the quote is from?
Grady wrote: If you support the 2nd amendment you must be a racist. After the Heller decision the left have no more arrows in their quivers, so when all else fails play the race card. It’s all over the left blogosphere, that the 2nd amendment was added to the constitution to protect slave owners. If Thom Hartman, Danny Glover, and Carl T Bogus say it, it must be true.
Edit to add: Just who is Dr Carl T Bogus? From his own writings “I’m a dyed-in-the-wool liberal”.
Nationalreview.com
The Second 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.
The real reason the Second Amendment was ratified, and why it says "State" instead of "Country" (the Framers knew the difference - see the 10th Amendment), was to preserve the slave patrol militias in the southern states, which was necessary to get Virginia's vote. Founders Patrick Henry, George Mason, and James Madison were totally clear on that . . . and we all should be too.
So, are you saying the framers did NOT know the difference between "State" instead of "Country"?...You think it was an oversight?
I know you are a stickler about sources, so could you tell us where the quote is from?
The U.S. Constitution...
The rest of it is me just "talking about an article"... No source necessary... Ask Fred... He knows how it works.
Gee, because a guy's name is "Bogus" that renders his writings irrelevant?
And I'M a "dyed-in-the-wool liberal." So what?... And LaPierre is dyed-in-the-wool raving lunatic madman who should be locked up for his own good...
Actually, if you directly quote a source, also known as someone else's words, then yes, you have to provide a link to that source per copyright law. If all you do is talk about something someone else wrote in your own words, without ever directly copying their words, then no, you don't have to have a link.
There is a difference between good debate style and copyright infringement. If you want to back up a good argument with facts, then quoting a credible source is necessary, but if you don't care about convincing anyone of your argument then you certainly aren't required to do so. What matters is whether you directly quote someone else's words - if you do, then you absolutely need a link back to that source or you are violating Fair Use Doctrine. As I previously stated here
.
"Now, more than ever, the illusions of division threaten our very existence. We all know the truth: more connects us than separates us. But in times of crisis the wise build bridges, while the foolish build barriers. We must find a way to look after one another as if we were one single tribe.” -King T'Challa, Black Panther
The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it. ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is. ~Winston Churchill
So, let me rephrase it: I've HEARD that the real reason the Second Amendment was ratified, and why it says "State" instead of "Country" (it IS pretty obvious that the Framers knew the difference - see the 10th Amendment), was to preserve the slave patrol militias in the southern states, which was necessary to get Virginia's vote. I THINK that the Founders Patrick Henry, George Mason, and James Madison were pretty clear on that.
Several authors and writers have put forward this idea, and I agree with it....
And other than insulting someone with the last name of Bogus, and the usual boilerplate denial of the ideas because they came from sources that are considered to be "dyed-in-the-wool liberal" sources, I've seen nothing that represents anything but the usual deflection of the ideas, which as I've stated, I don't see a valid response for yet....
However, it looks like the ideas have been discussed somewhat by a well-known commentator:
The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:
The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.
Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it.....
A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the lend, it is superseded thereby.
No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.
Jon Roland:
Strictly speaking, an unconstitutional statute is not a "law", and should not be called a "law", even if it is sustained by a court, for a finding that a statute or other official act is constitutional does not make it so, or confer any authority to anyone to enforce it.
All citizens and legal residents of the United States, by their presence on the territory of the United States, are subject to the militia duty, the duty of the social compact that creates the society, which requires that each, alone and in concert with others, not only obey the Constitution and constitutional official acts, but help enforce them, if necessary, at the risk of one's life.
Any unconstitutional act of an official will at least be a violation of the oath of that official to execute the duties of his office, and therefore grounds for his removal from office. No official immunity or privileges of rank or position survive the commission of unlawful acts. If it violates the rights of individuals, it is also likely to be a crime, and the militia duty obligates anyone aware of such a violation to investigate it, gather evidence for a prosecution, make an arrest, and if necessary, seek an indictment from a grand jury, and if one is obtained, prosecute the offender in a court of law.
