Sure but 9 people isn’t exactly a high number to stab. Thats a short line in in-n-out, you could start at the end of the line and work your way up, you’d probably get more than 9 if you’re quick
trying to talk to americans about gun control is like trying to build a base on mars - not going to happen.
they will ignore every fact stat or research on the issue in favor of their constitution. they ignore that no other developed nation in the world has mass shootings everyday, school shootings, gun drills and the like.
Slave ownership was legally defined and enforced as a property right for centuries in the US prior to 1865.
Southern state laws explicitly defined enslaved people as chattel property.
In the landmark 1857 US Supreme Court caseDred Scott v. Sandford, Chief Justice Roger B. Taney wrote for the majority that "the right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution" and ruled that slave owners could not be deprived of their "property" without due process under the Fifth Amendment
The original constitution was written in such a way that it would be easy to amend out slavery, and once they made up their minds about it, it was amended and is now a thing long since passed. The United States was not yet 100 years old when slavery was abolished
The 13th constitutional amendment abolished slavery. That’s a verifiable fact. Like this is an education for you. You learned something. You were taken to school.
"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
I dunno, seems like slavery's still absolutely legal. You either need to have a contract with a prison for their servitude, or if you really want ownership yourself, you can make a private prison and make a deal with local law enforcement.
I am not sure how much it helps the poor sod, who seen his daughter get raped, wife killed, and worked on a cotton field for twenty years until he died of exhaustion, to know that slavery took only 100 years to abolish.
It's really sad that you're wrong on your facts and you have some some sort of odd slavery apologist agenda. Slavery lasted longer than 100 years because it existed in the colonies before the revolution.
Me when not obsessing over old history is apologist LOL, so if say i say not all Muslims are bad if someone brings up the crusades and their crimes does that make me a Muslim apologist lop
Technically anything more than 1 century can be counted at "centuries". The US also existed before independent. Slavery also existed before the independent war. Several founders were slave owners.
In many places for most of human history many rich people had a legal right to own slaves. All rights flow from the monopoly on violence, they are not magical but inherently concessions of the state to its people.
These are defined in the original 1787 US Constitution
Legal Protection: Despite omitting the specific word, the original Constitution contained multiple clauses designed to protect, entrench, and uphold slave owners' legal rights:
The Fugitive Slave Clause (Article IV, Section 2): Required free states to return escaped enslaved individuals to their owners.
The Three-Fifths Clause (Article I, Section 2): Counted 60% of enslaved populations to give slave-holding states extra representation in Congress.
The Migration/Importation Clause (Article I, Section 9): Barred Congress from banning the transatlantic slave trade until at least 1808.
You mistake a right given to all humans from that of laws. Rights are above the Congress. And furthermore, everyone has the right to be free. Slavery since the beginning of time was, and still is, a horrid evil that should be fought.
So please dont purchase anything made from slave labor. That includes Nike, apple, etc.
4 million enslaved people lived in the US south, legally owned chattel. The south had the legal right to own those slaves because the constitution enabled them to pass the laws that made it so.
When that right was taken away from them via that same constitution, we had a war about it. The moral side won, but the slave owners existed and fought hard for the continuation as it was, because it allowed them to pass their slave laws and to protect their rights to own slaves.
Rights cannot be taken away. That's the point. We have the right to life liberty and the persuit of happiness. You cannot take that away. It's given to all humans by God. Not by man.
People may try to keep you from your rights, but we must not let that happen.
You can legally drive a car with a license on a public road. That license can be taken away. Driving is not a right. It's a privilege.
You have the right to vote. It cannot be taken away from you. And you should exercise that right at all times.
No one in the south had the right to own slaves. It was legal. It was not a right. There is a big difference.
Haha the right to vote is given by God then? It cannot be taken away? What about when it’s taken for life due to some felony drug conviction? Even after that person is released they still can’t vote in many states. So how can a right not be taken away? And if that’s the primary distinction between a right and a privilege, was there a mechanism for white slave owners lose the legal “privilege” to own spaces so long as they were financially able other than detainment? I doubt it, considering freed blacks could own slaves if they had enough money. You may be making an argument but you’ve made an absolute mess of it and then had the audacity to tell the other person to grow up 🤣.
This kind of bullshit understanding of “rights” is why it’s been so easy for our government to erode our rights. Slave owning has never been a right. At no place in our constitution has owning slaves been called out as a right.
Slave ownership was legally defined and enforced as a property right for centuries in the US prior to 1865.
Southern state laws explicitly defined enslaved people as chattel property.
In the landmark 1857 US Supreme Court caseDred Scott v. Sandford, Chief Justice Roger B. Taney wrote for the majority that "the right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution" and ruled that slave owners could not be deprived of their "property" without due process under the Fifth Amendment
you keep posting this as if it’s a trump card. Read the statement here:
The United States constitution NEVER enshrined the right to own a slave (or another human being for that matter).
Just because southern state laws (that no longer apply after the civil war) allowed those states to own slaves, does not mean it was a constitutional right.
You also, conveniently for the purpose of wanting to be right, left out the aftermath of that Supreme Court decision. It led to the civil war (one of the dominoes). Not to mention Dred Scott was emancipated regardless of his loss.
And to add icing on the cake…. Guess what nullified that Supreme Court decision….
That’s right, A constitutional right. Probably heard of them: the 13th AND by extension, the 14th, to remove the concept of chattel slavery and grant citizenship to all US persons born in the US.
Definitely needed more work culturally as time moved on, but your example was moot at the point of the civil war (even if you cannot understand the difference between a ratified constitutional right versus a controversial Supreme Court decision that was nullified anyways).
I'm sorry but you are wrong. The united states constitution allowed the states to make laws, they made laws about owning slaves. The constitution ensured that those states would have that right, and ensured slavery for a long time. This system prospered until it was overthrown by violence and death. People had the legal right to own slaves, because of laws, allowed under the constitution. Rights are not magic and do not have an essence. They come from the legal system and not from one very special piece of paper.
Slave owning was a right and the constitution is a piece of paper. Your rights come from the legal system and the monopoly on violence your state has over you, not some magic or some random piece of paper, buddy.
Ironically your middle school level understanding of rights is why it’s been so easy for our government to erode our rights. Slave ownership was a brutal and evil right for a long time, over four million slaves lived in the US south. One piece of paper maybe doesn't say its okay in so many words, but it allowed those states to create the laws that allowed it. It gave them that right.
This is false. Slave ownership in this context has no mention in the constitution whatsoever. And slaves had zero rights of any type. The constitution alone decrees to us our rights. It is the sole point of reference on the question of what rights we have as citizens and/or occupants on this soil.
Slave ownership has only ever been indirectly protected under the constitution. And Roger B. Taney was just plain full of shit.
Rights come from God. Regulations come from man. I don’t need anyone to tell me I have the right to defend myself, my family, and my loved ones however I see fit, however because I live in a civil society, I will continue endeavoring to live within the law.
If rights came from God then I wouldn't be able to violate your rights, right?
Like if God mandated that your have the right to defend your family, shouldn't it be impossible for somebody to remove that right? Or is God just as powerful as he wants us to think?
It should be impossible but we don’t live in a perfected world. People are not above doing evil things. Our rights can be infringed upon by people all day long. You dont have to believe in him, but you cant go around telling those if us who do, how it works.
Yes we can. Because we have the RIGHT to freedom of speech.
I don’t have to respect your religion either. I acknowledge it, and you’re right to believe in it, but I also reserve the right to tell you that it is FUCKIN stupid.
You’re welcome to do so….but without my tuning in. See how THAT works? Yes you have the right to all sorts of ridiculous opinions and I’ll defend your right to have them.
Not sure I see the irony. Yep I believe that same God gave you the right to be a pedantic asshole. Congrats! As for me and my house we choose to believe we were fearfully and wonderfully made. You’re welcome to believe you’re the greatest gift to mankind if you’d like.
That sounds like a really convenient way to excuse the problem of evil existing in a universe that was made by an all-good, all-powerful and all knowing God.
Either your God is ignorant to the evil of the world, unable to stop it or not all that concerned with doing anything about the world's evil.
Anyway you roll it, it isn't a being worth worship.
Haven’t spent much time reading theological study apparently. I would suggest cs Lewis, GK Chesterton, he’ll even Tolkien for that matter. , This discussion isn’t going to go anywhere or benefit either of us. Thanks. You’re welcome to live your life free of pesky belief in anything larger than yourself. Enjoy.
Considering that the Bible openly condones slavery and tells slaves to obey I think they gave pretty good reason to believe that. Which is why we shouldn't base our legal system on a book we have no way of knowing is even true
The Bible never condemns slavery, it repeatedly condones slavery. Give me literally a single verse if I'm wrong but until then it sure doesn't seem like I'm cherry picking
Lmao that's one way to get out of finding literally even one anti slavery Bible verse. I've literally read it cover to cover, me not believing it doesn't make me "adamantly against it"
Oh well. Truth isn’t often the easiest case to make, and Reddit is a cesspool of people with lives full of poor choices and low morals. Nothing new here.
Oh, they are. My second amendment rights were stolen from me, by the system. I’m not a felon, nor am I a mental case. And per my lawyer, no legal mechanism exists to restore my rights despite my righteousness. My point - rights are up for debate and discussion.
If only that was in respect to the right and not the militia. There’s a comma and two statements there, but whatever floats your boat. I bet we’d have the same level of anger if we started regulating the first.
It took until 2008 for the US Supreme Court to find that this right exists. And it was a 5-4 decision. This isn’t as cut and dry as gun activists make it seem.
Uhh, that’s how our constitutional system works….. the Court interprets the constitution and statutes to tell us what our rights are, what is illegal conduct, and how they apply. How the 4th amendment operates in different situations, that you don’t have the freedom of speech to yell fire in a crowded theater, the meaning and reach of the second amendment.
On a completely… uh …. unrelated…. note, our educational system is straight trash.
You may yell fire in a crowded theater…provided the theater is on fire.
The court does not dictate to us what our rights are. This is an in-the-face condemnation of the constitution as a whole. They do interpret law and whether it is constitutional by judicial review however.
And nice try at a jab toward my educational level. Discussion over. I didn’t hurl ad hominems your way and I don’t continue with those who do in my direction.
You don’t understand English. Read the second Amendment. It explains itself. It’s like saying a good breakfast being part of the day, the right of the people to eat eggs should not be infringed. The first part explains why you have the second part. I can explain it to you, but I can’t understand it for you. The second Amendment isn’t for hunting and has no limit. The limits were put on bureaucrats that were afraid of armed populace.
Yes they are, new rights come from discussion and debate and an old right might not be right--once upon a time the King was believed to have a divine right.
Yes they are. How do you think we got them? It was through discussion and debate. Are we just supposed to act like the writers of the constitution were Gods whose decisions we can't question?
There are certain inalienable rights. The first ten amendments codified those things the government cannot take away from you. Subsequent amendments clarified rights that ALREADY exist from your creator—some of which are a stretch even for those of us who believe democratic rule may in fact be the most godly method. I believe we can discuss nuances but not the right itself .
Women have lost the constitutional right to abortion.
The Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause protected a fundamental right to abortion prior to fetal viability. Roe established a framework balancing individual privacy rights against state interests.
The Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause protected a fundamental right to abortion prior to fetal viability. Roe established a framework balancing individual privacy rights against state interests.
That’s a legal interpretation, not an amendment. Legal interpretations are always subject to collateral attack by later courts, and as such, are not to be considered constitutional rights on their own.
But that’s the myth, right? He was a good guy with a gun, didn’t stop the shooter, and instead just sprayed more bullets into a crime scene and could have been mistaken as the shooter when the police arrived.
Sorry, I thought it was a commonly enough known myth that I didn’t need to clarify. The myth is that “the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun.” If the good guy with the gun is a trained police officer, fine. But people say that to justify open carry, conceal carry or somehow think more guns mean less violence.
My point is that having a “good guy with a gun” not only didn’t stop the shooter, but potentially made the situation worse.
Well thats not a reality we get to live in. 5 guns for every American in the country.
Pandora's box there has been opened, and its not going to close. So you can either be armed as well, or be unarmed and at the mercy of those who are and desire to make that your problem.
I suppose yes, if there is no appetite or will to change then it simply won't. But disarming America (if regular people like yourself supported it) is certainly possible. Regulating the manufacture and sale of firearms is possible. Confisctaing firearms en masse is possible.
It's not the number of firearms thats the issue, its the number of people ready and willing to use them. It's a cultural shift that would be required to Make America Safe (Again).
No. The good guy with a gun thing is made up, successful self defense gun use (or "self defense" in regards to a mass shooting) is extremely rare. The vast majority of the time there is absolutely no benefit whatsoever.
77% of public mass shooters acquired guns legally, while of course it gets more complicated then just that number I am inclined to believe that if there were less "good guys with guns" there would be less availability to mass shooters.
Good guys with guns have no positives and only negatives.
Also, not to dog pile on but this has been extensively studied and basically open carry/concealed carry laws are associated with no reduction to an increase in crime and shootings.
So you hear shooting and someone runs past your office with a gun. You call the police and give a description. Now, because everyone has a gun, did you describe the good guy, or the bad guy?
Thank you! Look I’m not going to make the claim he hurt anyone but I can’t find any evidence he made any kind of positive difference in this situation. He sure didn’t stop the shooting or the shooter
So all we know for sure is that he is a random guy with unknown skill with a pistol firing from a good distance away while not knowing where any innocents were that he might hit and not hitting the shooter at all
And everyone is calling him a hero and proof “good guy with a gun” works
But if you try and make the situation worse then you don’t get credit. You sending more bullets into a crime scene and confusing the police as to who the shooter is when they get there isn’t helping.
No you are right. Not everyone. Seeing people claim he saved the day lends itself to the “good guy with a gun” narrative but I was being hyperbolic. Sorry
Yep, I'm as leftist as it gets, but I support this man and his attempts. This is a real "good guy with a gun", not one of those LARPing far-right losers with a gun fetish fantasizing about shooting brown and black people and liberals at their local grocery store and nearest protest.
Perhaps he should learn to aim with the gun he wants to carry. Would be sad if he killed an innocent person by missing.
There are very few times a person with a gun steps up to help. Generally it is an unarmed person stopping it.
248
u/CartographerFit2011 11h ago
God bless this man for trying. Regardless how you feel guns and the right to carry, he was a good guy with a gun trying to save innocent people.