I'm pro-Second Amendment, but the NRA can go screw themselves - Page 3 - Mercedes-Benz Forum
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #21 of 35 (permalink) Old 07-03-2019, 12:56 PM
BenzWorld Member
 
Date registered: Oct 2006
Vehicle: 1993 500SL
Location: USA
Posts: 227
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
OK, I ordered a 80% xxxx on sale recently.
Bought a xxxx parts kit on sale last week.
Depending on your location you can build BATF legal firearms yourself.
Sorry, I don't give out advice.
Don't EVEN think about selling one, period.
badgator1 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #22 of 35 (permalink) Old 07-03-2019, 01:05 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
GreenT's Avatar
 
Date registered: Mar 2013
Vehicle: 1995 S500 - 1986 420SEL
Location: Floriduh
Posts: 61,136
Mentioned: 26 Post(s)
Quoted: 10616 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by cowboyt View Post
^^...the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Yes. To protect the state.
GreenT is online now  
post #23 of 35 (permalink) Old 07-03-2019, 03:02 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
The Proctologist's Avatar
 
Date registered: Jun 2011
Vehicle: 1972 350SL 148,000 miles
Location: Bolinas, CA
Posts: 6,974
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Quoted: 473 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by edfreeman View Post
Revisionism in progress.

The 2nd amendment was for the citizens to be able to defend the country, themselves and their property, and even against their own government.
Slaves being property at that time

and in all fairness my post should have read

Quote:
The 2nd amendment wasn't -just- for fighting the Brits, it was -also- for controlling runaway slaves
The point being it's intent was never to arm Blacks, Mexicans and Indians, but to arm white men -against- Blacks, Mexicans, and Indians

and if you think that's revisionist we inhabit different realities
Nutz 4 Benz likes this.
The Proctologist is offline  
post #24 of 35 (permalink) Old 07-03-2019, 07:36 PM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: May 2016
Vehicle: 2000 S430, 2003 S430, 2003 S600 TT, and 2005 E320 CDI
Location: USA
Posts: 3,973
Mentioned: 188 Post(s)
Quoted: 995 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
^^ As I mentioned, the fact that non-Whites also armed themselves was an unintended side-effect, one for which I am very glad.
cowboyt is offline  
post #25 of 35 (permalink) Old 07-03-2019, 07:40 PM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: May 2016
Vehicle: 2000 S430, 2003 S430, 2003 S600 TT, and 2005 E320 CDI
Location: USA
Posts: 3,973
Mentioned: 188 Post(s)
Quoted: 995 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenT View Post
Yes. To protect the state.
And its people within, specifically their liberty.

Of course, who were the "people" that the Framers were thinking of? Themselves, of course--White people. They did not consider Black people or Indians as "people". Indeed, that was one of the US Government's arguments during the Standing Bear v. Crook civil rights case; the government attorney trying the case argued that the Poncas were, "not persons within the meaning of the law".
cowboyt is offline  
post #26 of 35 (permalink) Old 07-03-2019, 07:58 PM
Moderately subtle
 
edfreeman's Avatar
 
Date registered: Dec 2003
Vehicle: 94 E500, 97 500SL
Location: Soddy Daisy, TN
Posts: 11,920
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Quoted: 179 Post(s)
Lifetime Premium Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Proctologist View Post
Slaves being property at that time

and in all fairness my post should have read



The point being it's intent was never to arm Blacks, Mexicans and Indians, but to arm white men -against- Blacks, Mexicans, and Indians

and if you think that's revisionist we inhabit different realities
Fully aware of who the "citizens" were considered to be at the time of the constitutional convention, and aware of the status of the slaves as "property." So, yeah, there wasn't an intent to specifically arm "those people," but neither did the 2nd have anything to do with "keeping the slaves in line." You're never one to toss words in someones mouth, so I trust you won't take this as a defense for horrible institutions of the time, but the 2nd amendment had nothing to do with slavery, had everything to do with defense of the country/states, self defense, and defense against a rogue government. I can toss all manner of quotes from the guys who wrote it describing vividly exactly what they meant and why (the rogue government thing was a big deal back then to a bunch of folks who'd just fought for independence), have done that before so I'll only do it again if questions remain.
The Proctologist likes this.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
edfreeman is offline  
post #27 of 35 (permalink) Old 07-03-2019, 08:18 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
The Proctologist's Avatar
 
Date registered: Jun 2011
Vehicle: 1972 350SL 148,000 miles
Location: Bolinas, CA
Posts: 6,974
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Quoted: 473 Post(s)
I won't suggest you are defending the institution, of course, but I have also read a great many quotes to suggest they were safeguarding Southern slave militias, so I agree to disagree agreeably
Doni likes this.
The Proctologist is offline  
post #28 of 35 (permalink) Old 07-04-2019, 03:41 AM
BenzWorld Elite
 
GreenT's Avatar
 
Date registered: Mar 2013
Vehicle: 1995 S500 - 1986 420SEL
Location: Floriduh
Posts: 61,136
Mentioned: 26 Post(s)
Quoted: 10616 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by cowboyt View Post
And its people within, specifically their liberty.

No, the state. THE state.

The "We the People" document is very specific when talking about the state, there is no vacillation in its meaning.
GreenT is online now  
post #29 of 35 (permalink) Old 07-04-2019, 03:56 AM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Apr 2013
Vehicle: '71 280se 3.5 cab
Location: The South
Posts: 6,662
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Quoted: 2019 Post(s)
the intent of the constitution, until specifically amended

was that every application of the word people, meant white people.

We know that is true from the very first line of the document and the slaveholders who signed it.

The second amendment insures firearms are a right to white people for virtually any need.
Doni and The Proctologist like this.
stockdill is online now  
post #30 of 35 (permalink) Old 07-04-2019, 08:29 AM
BenzWorld Member
 
Date registered: Mar 2019
Vehicle: 2003 ml500, 2004 ml350
Location: boise Id
Posts: 221
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Quoted: 65 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by edfreeman View Post
but the 2nd amendment had nothing to do with slavery, had everything to do with defense of the country/states, self defense, and defense against a rogue government.
Did you get a change to use the link and read the New York times article?
wallyo is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

  Mercedes-Benz Forum > Off Topic Section > Off-Topic

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Mercedes-Benz Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in











Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 

Title goes here

close
video goes here
description goes here. Read Full Story
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome