Dave_pro2a
Regular Member
Yeah, argue about a difference of degree, while telling people to ignore what doesn't fit into your false dichotomy.,
Rhetorical fail.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
State Senate bans openly carried guns in public gallery
- Thread starter 44Brent
- Start date
Yeah, argue about a difference of degree, while telling people to ignore what doesn't fit into your false dichotomy.,
Rhetorical fail.
Dave_pro2a
Regular Member
Federalists, seeking to preserve Federal power and unity.
The emancipation proclamation only freed the slaves Lincoln and the Continental congress had no power over -- the slaves of their enemy.
It preserved ownership of the slaves, for their friends and allies.
Real motives exposed. Everything else is American myth used to justify the most costliest war in American history, in regards to lost American lives.
Last edited:
utbagpiper
Banned
Nice dodge and great historical revisions. Slavery was ended by the 13th amendment. Abolition was driving by religiously motivated persons in both England and the USA.
You are a sterling example that emotions (your repeatedly expressed anti-religious bigotries) are far more powerful than facts.
Charles
utbagpiper
Banned
So are you refusing to provide citations to back up your claims regarding who attacks RKBA most strongly vs who has actually advanced legal respect for our RKBA?
Charles
Dave_pro2a
Regular Member
Provide your own citations.
Here, I'll start you out with a real wingnut winner.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/huckabee-lets-loose-gun-control-103000511.html
SovereigntyOrDeath
Regular Member
Very true. The Unites states was at risk of dissolving, and Lincoln wanted to embolden the slaves to revolt, kill their masters and hence destroy the south from within. Smart military strategy.
It was still legal to own slaves in the United States until passage of the 13th Amendment to the US Constitution in December of 1865.
"Now, therefore I Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, by virtue of the power in me vested as Commander-in-Chief, of the Army and Navy of the United States in time of actual armed rebellion against the authority and government of the United States, and as a fit and necessary war measure for suppressing said rebellion, do, on this first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and in accordance with my purpose so to do publicly proclaimed for the full period of one hundred days, from the day first above mentioned, order and designate as the States and parts of States wherein the the people thereof respectively, are on this day in rebellion against the United States, the following,to wit:
Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana (except the Parishes of St. Bernard, Plaquemines, Jefferson, St. John, St. Charles, St. James Ascension, Assumption, Terrebonne, Lafourche, St. mary, St. Martin, and Orleans, including the City of New Orleans), Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia, (except the forty-eight counties designated as West Virginia, and also the counties of Berkley, Accomac, Northampton, Elizabeth City, York, Princess Ann, and Norfolk, including the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth), and which excepted parts, are for the present, left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued.
And by virtue of the power, and for the purpose aforesaid, I do order and declare that all persons held as slaves within said designated States, and parts of States, are, and henceforward shall be free; and that the Executive government of the United States, including the military and naval authorities thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of said persons."
Abe Lincoln January 1, 1863
The Civil War started on April 12, 1861. About 2 years after the start of the war, Abe has a brainstorm, his proclomation. Why did he not free the slaves over the entire United states and territories?
Conclusion: Preserving the Union was the number 1 motive for the war.
Last edited:
utbagpiper
Banned
That was certainly Lincoln's #1 motive for the war. But since the war was caused primarily by the potential breakup of the union and the potential breakup of the union was caused at least as much by federal tariffs as by disagreements over slavery, discussing the war is really a side issue compared to the issue of slavery.
And the fact remains that the push to abolish slavery was made primarily on religious grounds in both England and the US.
I trust that since nobody has bothered to disagree with my assessment on the civil rights movement to provide legal and social equality for racial minorities or on rights for the unborn, they are conceding that freedom for both of these groups was spearheaded by the religious as well.
My point remains, Dave may be pro-2a, but his bigotries against men of faith cloud his ability to even understand or acknowledge well known history regarding who pushed for freedom for slaves/blacks and for the unborn.
Charles
utbagpiper
Banned
Not how this site works, Dave. You make claims, you get to back them up.
The formal rule is thus:
•(5) CITE TO AUTHORITY: If you state a rule of law, it is incumbent upon you to try to cite, as best you can, to authority. Citing to authority, using links when available,is what makes OCDO so successful. An authority is a published source of law that can back your claim up - statute, ordinance, court case, newspaper article covering a legal issue, etc.
Culture of the site says posters are expected to provide citations to any factual claims.
Put up or shut up on religious conservatives attacking the RKBA more so than secular liberals.
You realize that link makes my point, not yours?
Charles
Dave_pro2a
Regular Member
Cite embryo Rights. Try it.
Primus
Regular Member
Natural rights. You know that life liberty stuff. Right to defend oneself. The ones simply codified by the Constitution that humans would have before during and after. Well there's no age limit to those rights. So when you have a heart beat you have the rights.
utbagpiper
Banned
Natural right to life, (along with liberty and pursuit of happiness): Declaration of Independence.
Of course, just like negro rights, largely unrecognized by our law. And just like negro rights, by much the same mechanism: courts and statute define the unpopular minority as something less than human.
Congrats. You share so much in common with the antebellum slavers.
Charles
utbagpiper
Banned
Natural right to life, (along with liberty and pursuit of happiness): Declaration of Independence.
Of course, just like negro rights, largely unrecognized by our law. And just like negro rights, by much the same mechanism: courts and statute define the unpopular minority as something less than human.
Do you support rights for all? Or just those rights that you find convenient for yourself?
Congrats. You share so much in common with the antebellum slavers.
Charles
Dave_pro2a
Regular Member
Can parents cast a vote on behalf of an embroy, so they get 2 votes per election?
Or would it be 1.5 votes, since the embryo isn't a baby?
Does a birth certificate have to be issued before a death certificate can?
If am embryo "dies" in a plan crash, does the family get cash?
If an embro "dies" in a car crash caused by DUI or negligent driving, are additional charges filed for manslaughter?
Simply "citing" "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" is a crock of crap. You lose on that first thing -- and what you are really citing is the bible.
"I see that you are ready to kill your son, your only son, for me.”
Primus
Regular Member
Non of which you cited is a natural right.
No natural right to vote, cash, birth certificate s/death certificates, or recognition by laws.
Weak sauce. [emoji39]
utbagpiper
Banned
To exactly the same extent they get to cast votes on behalf of their minor children. Do you favor legalized infanticide in addition to legalized, elective abortion on demand?
On what rational, logical basis is a child entitled to any fewer rights 2 weeks before birth than she is two weeks after birth?
In some States, yes. In some cases, the murder of a pregnant woman will result in two murder charges if her unborn child cannot be saved.
Your point exactly was??
Notable how you use the same tactic here as was used by the antebellum slavers.
You dehumanize the unborn child by referring to her as an "embryo". Notice how the slavers never talked about "Men held in slavery" but instead talked about "slaves", "Africans", "African Americanes" and worse terms.
Yet again, you share significant commonality with the slavers. You oppose rights for certain groups. You use biased language to dehumanize those groups. You define those groups as being less than fully human.
Ironically and hypocritically, you then turn around and castigate anyone you think is not supporting "Freedom" in quite the way you think you they should.
Notably, there are some sound, logical, arguments to make against laws against abortion. Not surprising that a bigot is so small minded as to fail to make them. To be clear, this is not a personal insult anymore than "statist" is an insult. You have demonstrated bigotry toward conservatives and the religious.
Charles
Last edited:
Dave_pro2a
Regular Member
Yup, you guys have some strong religious bias against abortion, which is different than philosophical bias.
So why don't you support gay marriage Rights? It's just a state license, why can they discriminate against gays?
So why don't you support gay marriage Rights? It's just a state license, why can they discriminate against gays?
WalkingWolf
Regular Member
Because they don't like gays~~it is called selective discrimination. Or if you will "Butters".
Primus
Regular Member
I do support gay marriage rights. Let em have it.
SovereigntyOrDeath
Regular Member
Semantics. You were an embryo too. Still an American (maybe). Still had rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
A Human Being at early stage in development is still a Human Being, no matter semantics.
The Human being status starts when the sperm enters the egg.
No matter all the legal BS. Roe v Wade. Human beings were here before words. Embryo, or sperm, or egg, or human law, human dictionaries, were invented.
Preemption. Humans existed first. Natural Rights existed first.
philosophical enough for ya?
Last edited:
Dave_pro2a
Regular Member
Opponents to gun Rights say the same thing about "Bear" "arms" "militia" "organized" etc.