The Mobs of Madness

Oooh, don't tell your conservative American friends that - they get pissy about that kind of criticism of the early stages of the American Revolutionary War.

I'm well aware of that contradiction yes. It seems to be woven in the very fabric of cultural America; on one hand we're "rebels" but on the other hand, obey the police, and the law!

Indeed, one picture is worth a thousand words

Yup. And it is THE reason why we wrote into the Consitution that the police aren't ever, ever allowed to do that again.

What exact part of the Constitution are you referring to? I don't even think there was hardly even police in those days, I could be wrong though.

The 5th, 6th, and 14th Ammendments combine to check the powers of law enforcement. The Boston Massacre was very much at the heart of the intent of all three of these.

The Continental Government (AKA "the Founding Fathers") made a PR frenzy out of this. And guess what - they DIDN'T approach it from a "obey the police, and the law!" angle. Quite the opposite.

Right, the right of jury was to protect against despotic government, especially after the misuse of power by the British.

But I don't see where it actually mentions he police. I would assume that type of authority comes from the 10th amendment.

Which would imply, as Merry just said, a protection FROM the federal government. The founders saw the federal government as they saw old British government. That's my understanding.

For some reason Merry I can't respond to your post, it only says 'flag' ha. I don't mind Antithesis, he's entertaining and not stupid; but I don't understand where the hell he gets some of his information. It's one thing to disagree with something, that is fine by me, but to actually argue over a fact, I simply don't understand. The 2nd amendment, and the reasons for it, is so evidently obvious to me, that it's not really an opinion.

antithesis is one of the less bright and most confused idividuals here on imgflip, isn't he?

OK. And how do you have a jury trial if you're dead?

Well, for one...if the cop tells you to get in the car, get in the car. If he tells you to put your hands behind your back, you're under arrest, comply. Then you don't end up dead and you can have your jury trial.

Cops can't execute me extrajudicially. Constitution.

You wouldn't have one obviously. :)

The would HAVE to give me one. Consitution. I'm entitled to a jury.

I said it is the new term that the race-hustlers use.
Can't you comprehend a simple sentence anymore?

But it's not, though. It's been a bread and butter word of the English language since English was a thing.

to your comment "Cops can't execute me extrajudicially. Constitution"

False narrative. "Execute" is the new term that the race-huslting lawyers (Ben Crump is just the latest) are using in their narratives as they extort from cities millions of dollars in the false hope that it will keep the real racists (BLM & Antifa) from burning down their cities.

We are dealing with a moron,here, folks.

You think execution is a new term? ?????!

Are you just desperate at this point?

NO. YOU. GINORMOUS. MORON !!!!!!!!!

THEY. ARE. TO. CHECK. THE. GOVERNMENT.

And it was the Continental Congress

sheesh, what a moron

WTF?
Show us where in the Constitution it even alludes to that.
Also, your pic is a great illustration as to why the 2nd Amendment exists and will be VIGOROUSLY defended.

This is what I've been trying to tell you for years: it's in the 5th, 6th, and 14th Ammendments.

The 2nd Ammendment was really just to enforce state slave patrols.

slave patrols? This is simply not true. Do you have any paper or book you could refer me to, where I can that. It's not ture.

I'm NOT going to put a whole lot of time into just you, because you should be really be learning more about this yourself and you're not entitled to my time.

But Patrick Henry, 1788, from the debate in Virginia ratifying the Convention:

"If the country be invaded, a state may go to war, but cannot suppress insurrections [under this new Constitution]. If there should happen an insurrection of slaves, the country cannot be said to be invaded. They cannot, therefore, suppress it without the interposition of Congress ... Congress, and Congress only [under this new Constitution; addition not mentioned in source], can call forth the militia."

And this is what I have been trying to tell you the whole time: "well-regulated militia" NEVER MEANT YOU AND YOUR BUDDIES PLAYING MINUTEMEN COSPLAY. THAT WAS NEVER EVER THE PURPOSE.

Firstly, I don't think I'm entitled to your time, but you do keep responding (which I enjoy). Secondly, what does this quote have to do with the 2nd amendment. The militia and the people were two different things.

It's the origin of the grassroots effort to create the Second Ammendment.

I will though I have never seen that quote and it is interesting; though I don't think means what you're implying, at least not black and white.

I can't respond to your last comment, it only gives me the option to 'flag' lol. I just think you're wrong about this. I'm sure (and unfortunately I say this) that the owners of slaves would need guns to control them. However, if that is truly the only reason for the 2nd amendment, I sure as hell have never heard of it, probably because it's not true.

*read that

NO. YOU. GINORMOUS. MORON !!!!!!!!!

THEY. ARE. TO. CHECK. THE. GOVERNMENT.

SLAVE. PATROLS?? You truly are ignorant of our Constitution .

And it was the Continental Congress

sheesh, what a moron

They did take minutes of their debates, and yeah, it was the slave patrols. It was for their benefit that the second ammendment was rewritten over and over again until it became the worst worded legislation in history that we know it as today.

You should read a book called, The Founding Father's guide to the Constitution. It's a total libertarian style book(some of it, cheesy) but in general it gets down to the actual debates that were held at the Convention; and not what people wish the Constitution says.

Show us those minutes