Britain leaves the European Union today

[EyeBRollin]

None.

The arguments for and against each of the original 10 Amendments in the Bill of Rights are contained in 'The Federalist Papers' and 'The Anti-federalist Papers', but almost no-one bothers to actually read them.

Instead, we are treated to nonsense explanations of the 3/5 compromise, as a supposedly dehumanizing effort by Southern slave-owners, when they actually wanted their slaves to be counted 100% towards representation, instead of 60%, because it would give the South greater representation in Congress and in the electoral college. Heck, the South would have counted their slaves as 5/3, if the North would've let them get away with it. Instead, the North argued that slaves should count as 0% toward representation, and they compromised on 3/5.

We keep hearing stupid s hit, though, because people don't bother to think and read.

This level of ignorance it’s maddening. The south only wanted to count slaves as people as it pertained to representation. Slaves were strictly considered property in every other sense. Don’t try to push your pro-slavery propaganda.

 

[EyeBRollin]

The discussion presented by the the anti-White people is always implicitly stating that ALL Whites owned slaves.

This is what they want everyone to believe and it is ridiculous fiction. And even if it were true, the entire planet and every race has enslaved every other race. But Whites and White nations were the first to free them all.

Pathetic. Look at this validation-seeking rationalization for owning other human beings.

 

[thinker]

@EyeBRollin you are clearly a racist. A racist brings race into every single conversation as you do. A racist also brings dumb craap into conversations like in the thread where I told you that I am Latino and you kept badgering me about what box I checked on when I fill out forms, by the way just to make you happy numbnuts I check the box for Latino/Hispanic. Also guess what since you bring up slavery it was Africans who sold other Africans into slavery. There were also black slave owners in America. As a matter of fact the court case that made slavery legal in the colonies that eventually became America was a case between a black plantation owner named Anthony Johnson and one of his former black indentured servants named John Casor. The colonial court ruled in favor of Johnson who claimed that Casor was his property. This court case set the precedent that one human being could own another human being who didn't owe him money and had no contractual obligations to him, therefor it legalized slavery. You can wallow in your ignorance all you want at the end of the day you are still going to be an angry ignorant numbnuts loser.

 

[Xenom0rph]

Who said anything about race?

Lean some base American History. The Brits were offering freedom to escaped slaves during the revolutionary war if they fought on behalf of the Brits. The right to bear arms was about slavery, specifically patrols (which operated as light militia) used to hunt escaped slaves. Facts don’t give a damn about your discomfort or feelings.

This is the comedy routine that I'm referring to - you twist every conversation into a racism narrative and then try to deny it...

 

[EyeBRollin]

This is the comedy routine that I'm referring to - you twist every conversation into a racism narrative and then try to deny it...

If informing you the truth of our country's glorious history is funny, so be it.

 

[EyeBRollin]

See?

This reply is premised on the fallacy that only Whites had slaves.

Blacks had slaves and slavery still exists today.....but not in White countries.

Only one bringing race into this thread is you.

 

[EyeBRollin]

@EyeBRollin you are clearly a racist. A racist brings race into every single conversation as you do. A racist also brings dumb craap into conversations like in the thread where I told you that I am Latino and you kept badgering me about what box I checked on when I fill out forms, by the way just to make you happy numbnuts I check the box for Latino/Hispanic. Also guess what since you bring up slavery it was Africans who sold other Africans into slavery. There were also black slave owners in America. As a matter of fact the court case that made slavery legal in the colonies that eventually became America was a case between a black plantation owner named Anthony Johnson and one of his former black indentured servants named John Casor. The colonial court ruled in favor of Johnson who claimed that Casor was his property. This court case set the precedent that one human being could own another human being who didn't owe him money and had no contractual obligations to him, therefor it legalized slavery. You can wallow in your ignorance all you want at the end of the day you are still going to be an angry ignorant numbnuts loser.

Cry me a river.

Cite the post in this thread where I mentioned race. I'll wait for it.

 

[Spaz]

Well, speaking of evolution, real Men don't depend on and wait for other men to defend them, as if they were helpless women and children.

Your entire argument seems to be that YOU don't require the tools to protect yourself, because other men will protect and rescue you from danger.

Ive been polite to you in this discussion here out of respect and yet you come up with these statement.

My entire argument is abt the needless deaths that occurs in urban areas due to the availability of guns and the general reduction re quality of life there.

I've already pointed out that other countries has almost zero deaths due to gun related violence - that's fact.

Meanwhile you're only using emotions that fuels ur beliefs - doesn't even sound manly, more like fearful.

 

[Spaz]

Sounds to me like Spaz has the resources to pay for shyt so he doesn't have to do everything himself. Turns out, in Singapore, you get good bang for your buck. Donald Trump doesn't walk around with a gun. Think about it.

If it's about assuming the onus of self-defense, then we don't need immigration laws or police or the military. That's just other men protecting us. I've read enough libertardian literature and I know that it's not practical, though it's an honorable notion.

Crime can't be eliminated 100% but it can be minimized drastically. Right now America sits at the bottom with many third world shytholes in number of gun related deaths per capita. South Africa, Mexico, and Nicaragua have fewer. Meanwhile other countries have far lower violent crime rates without a massively armed public. The tradeoff is they're less free to own a firearm, but more free to walk around day and night, man or woman. Everything has a cost.

Don't get me wrong, I don't have all the answers and I respect you guys who are responsible gun owners. If I lived in in the middle of nowhere in Wyoming I'd probably own a firearm. Too many bears and it takes too long for the cops to respond if you're in the country. In that case I'd bear the cost of owning a weapon, maybe even illegally.

Actually I think in the U.S. this stuff should be decided provincially. For instance New York has a policy that makes sense for New York but not for Wyoming. Most countries aren't as big and diverse as the U.S. This should be a municipal or state decision at most, but the 2nd Amendment exists so there you go.

It's true that I have resources - armed men that guards what belongs to me.

There's only a need to use them when I'm in places where the host govt has no power.

Meanwhile in places like Singapore, Seoul, Kuala Lumpur, Stockholm, Sydney and Tokyo, you could walk in relative safety.

And in those places, those established criminal gangs operating with thousands of members know its foolish to carry guns.

But when in America, those very same gangs members are carrying guns.

 

[Spaz]

You admit to having armed security to protect you, but I'm not the one who's afraid for everyone else to be armed, too. In fact, I've faced down armed men, while unarmed myself. Just saying.

I'm still not advocating for every part of the globe to be a carbon copy of America. I'm not a globalist, but a nationalist. Each nation should do what makes it happiest.

Having said that, to the extent that it's true that we're overrun with people uncomfortable or incompetent with our second amendment, we should send them somewhere they'd be more at home, whether back to Venezuela or back to Sweden(no offense to either).

I have armed men to protect what belongs to me and me them/their families because I'm their hereditary leader.

But that's not important.

Moreover there's nothing wrong being a nationalist.

I just couldn't fathom the preoccupation with guns when a man actually doesn't need one in a city.

Facts have proven time and again that high ownership of gun yields high violences in any city, a place that only has concrete.

When u r free, go ask any Yakuza gang member in ur local area (who I'm sure is carrying a gun) if he dares to carry a conceal gun in Tokyo.

I can almost guarantee that he'll think you're either stupid or completely ignorant.

All the reasons you're gave such as criminals, etc doesn't really hold much water.

What you have is a belief that's actually derived from a feeling, not an actual need.

 

[Spaz]

What you have is an opinion, to which you're entitled, but I would prefer to live in a society where the populous could actually be trusted to be armed, and which deports everyone who can't be trusted to be armed.

That's the problem in America, not our second amendment, but that we've tolerated the presence of people who can't be trusted with it.

You do Singapore, and I'll do America. That's nationalism. To each his own.

As I've previously said, btw, I'm trying to remain restrained in my responses, out of respect to the subject of this thread, but I'd be happy to have an unrestricted discussion of the virtues of gun control, in a thread dedicated to that subject.

I'm not a Singaporean.

 

[Alvafe]

I have armed men to protect what belongs to me and me them/their families because I'm their hereditary leader.

But that's not important.

Moreover there's nothing wrong being a nationalist.

I just couldn't fathom the preoccupation with guns when a man actually doesn't need one in a city.

Facts have proven time and again that high ownership of gun yields high violences in any city, a place that only has concrete.

When u r free, go ask any Yakuza gang member in ur local area (who I'm sure is carrying a gun) if he dares to carry a conceal gun in Tokyo.

I can almost guarantee that he'll think you're either stupid or completely ignorant.

All the reasons you're gave such as criminals, etc doesn't really hold much water.

What you have is a belief that's actually derived from a feeling, not an actual need.

I see so you do ahve people with guns around you, but don't want people to have guns, ilogical, unless youa re afraid of someone going after you.

thing with guns is, people want or need something to pretect thenselfs, not many do like me who know how to build weapons from metal or wood plus know how to use any weapon, save for some I couldn't bother to learn, or rather can't see it working well. also note a weapon tend to be a equalizer, from blunt to bladed to bow to xbow to firearms, they was made as a easy way to deal with bigger menaces, don't matter how big or how strong you are a weapon will stop you, also note people are afraid of guns, and criminals use any weapon they can put they hands on to get a edge so they can steal from you, some don't even bother to point the gun, they just shot you then take your things,

would be nice to live in a world no one needed a weapon, but as long most weapons are dealt in black markets gun control means little for criminals, and that is the issue, I live in a country people are forbidden to have weapons, thing is criminals are using rifles and more powerfull weapons then no even the police have then, worse tehy can't even use these weapons if they capture from criminals they are locked in a place, with in time get back to said criminals, by corruption or by they stealing said weapons back. worse still criminals knowing they won't have any resistance from normal people they get bold and more agressive

 

[Epic Days]

None.

The arguments for and against each of the original 10 Amendments in the Bill of Rights are contained in 'The Federalist Papers' and 'The Anti-federalist Papers', but almost no-one bothers to actually read them.

Instead, we are treated to nonsense explanations of the 3/5 compromise, as a supposedly dehumanizing effort by Southern slave-owners, when they actually wanted their slaves to be counted 100% towards representation, instead of 60%, because it would give the South greater representation in Congress and in the electoral college. Heck, the South would have counted their slaves as 5/3, if the North would've let them get away with it. Instead, the North argued that slaves should count as 0% toward representation, and they compromised on 3/5.

We keep hearing stupid s hit, though, because people don't bother to think and read.

these things are unknown to most. They haven’t read the constitution much less the Federalist papers.
Many are so utterly clueless that they only go by what their indoctrination teacher told them or some nut jobs interpretation.

 

[Epic Days]

The second Amendment was inserted for slave rebellions as a compromise to appease slave states.

LMAO. If you would have said to protect themselves from natives as they moved inland more or a British Invasion or any foreign power, you would have at least come off as intelligent.

 

[Epic Days]

I salute the Brits for individuating and separating from the mob.

 

[Epic Days]

By the way, since 'America is a Racist Sh ithole' is apparently a topic of great interest to you, why don't you start that thread, where I'd be happy to embarrass you, in great detail. I think we've already hijacked this thread enough, though.

He’s a pro. Thread wrecking fool.

 

[Spaz]

I see so you do ahve people with guns around you, but don't want people to have guns, ilogical, unless youa re afraid of someone going after you.

thing with guns is, people want or need something to pretect thenselfs, not many do like me who know how to build weapons from metal or wood plus know how to use any weapon, save for some I couldn't bother to learn, or rather can't see it working well. also note a weapon tend to be a equalizer, from blunt to bladed to bow to xbow to firearms, they was made as a easy way to deal with bigger menaces, don't matter how big or how strong you are a weapon will stop you, also note people are afraid of guns, and criminals use any weapon they can put they hands on to get a edge so they can steal from you, some don't even bother to point the gun, they just shot you then take your things,

would be nice to live in a world no one needed a weapon, but as long most weapons are dealt in black markets gun control means little for criminals, and that is the issue, I live in a country people are forbidden to have weapons, thing is criminals are using rifles and more powerfull weapons then no even the police have then, worse tehy can't even use these weapons if they capture from criminals they are locked in a place, with in time get back to said criminals, by corruption or by they stealing said weapons back. worse still criminals knowing they won't have any resistance from normal people they get bold and more agressive

In reality or in the world that I live in, those weapons are a necessary evil for several purpose.

1. is to make the hawks within happy.
2. is to make outsiders wary and respectful
3. is to make hunting easier
4. is of course the projection of power
5. Continuation of influence
6. Continuation of tradition

What I have and control will never be allowed to exist in ur western country.

Whatever you tell me here or even plan to tell me, I've considered it all a long time ago as I've lived through it in various form or shape and not merely thinking abt it hypothetically as you do.

What everyone is thinking here is just a reflection of No. 1 - the same reflection of the hawks of my tribe.

I'm already many steps ahead from you.

 

[Alvafe]

In reality or in the world that I live in, those weapons are a necessary evil for several purpose.

1. is to make the hawks within happy.
2. is to make outsiders wary and respectful
3. is to make hunting easier
4. is of course the projection of power
5. Continuation of influence
6. Continuation of tradition

What I have and control will never be allowed to exist in ur western country.

Whatever you tell me here or even plan to tell me, I've considered it all a long time ago as I've lived through it in various form or shape and not merely thinking abt it hypothetically as you do.

What everyone is thinking here is just a reflection of No. 1 - the same reflection of the hawks of my tribe.

I'm already many steps ahead from you.

and who said its hypothetical?

 

[Spaz]

and who said its hypothetical?

The problem in ur country is lax enforcement.

That's the root cause.

And the rest of what you raised up is merely a guess on ur part and thus a hypothesis...mere background noise from society's hawks.

 

[Alvafe]

The problem in ur country is lax enforcement.

That's the root cause.

And the rest of what you raised up is merely a guess on ur part and thus a hypothesis...mere background noise from society's hawks.

hmm I see so you don't undertand why you hawks do what they do, interesting