Pretty much

Pretty sure there's some kinda paperwork
that covers that somewhere

At home I carry because we have animals around us that can hurt us, I carry when I leave because of demonrats. Their opinion of my rights doesn't matter. I also hunt and shoot for fun, but I do not need an excuse to do it.

You're eager to shoot liberals, but you think liberals are the violent ones

My gawd, cheesy... that's NOT what OGMAGA said. Don't they teach you kids reading comprehension these days?

Your lib influenced inferences do not equal what was written, let alone reality.

You haven't been around since what year? You don't even know who that user, OGMAGA, is.
How do you know what he hasn't said which everybody here has witnessed except you because you haven't been here?

imgflip.com/i/ayn303#com40364382

Take a gander in the comments because he isn't the only one smh

There was another thwarted assassination attempt on Trump in Los Angeles a few days ago. And you know it wasn't a conservative who they caught and arrested.

Hey leftists...

Conservatives, Republicans, MAGA or whatever, we are all human beings. We have lives. We have families and friends. We are not sub-humans. We are not "less-evolved". We are human beings just like you.

Just because we think different that you does not mean you have to murder us. It is just opinions. Our opinions do not cause you any harm. We are not taking away your rights, we are trying to preserve them. We do not want to lock you up in a gulag. We are not Nazis or fascists. We are Americans. We believe in the beauty of what the founding fathers left for us and we do not want to lose that.

If you think for one second that it was all about slavery, then you are a blithering idiots because freedom or right applies to all citizens of this country regardless of color. That is how it is now and I nor anyone else can change the past. We live now, not 250 years ago. And even those who lived 250 years ago, most of them opposed slavery. We were NOT founded by rich white slave owners. We were founded by men who signed a document that fully expected to be executed for it. It was a shock to most of them that they weren't killed. They "pledged their lives, their fortunes and sacred honor". Their "fortunes" did NOT mean they were rich, it just meant everything they owned, even if that was just the shirt on their back. How many of you lefties would come even close to giving up everything including your life for the cause of liberty? If you would then why are you on the side of tyranny?

Thing of it is, 'gun control' or rather 'weapon control' isn't new either and I don't even mean the likes of Hitler or Stalin either. I'm talking wwwaaayyy back in time to ancient Israel. I've read a couple of things about how ancient Israelis were tempted to give up their swords, spears, bows, etc. It wasn't because God said to be more like a peacemaker or that Israel was being a bit too violent for even a violent point in history. To be honest, God did forbid King David from building the Temple because he warred too much.

It's because some corrupt political type tried to weaken the populace by disarming them.

Even in the New Testament, while Jesus did warn 'those who live by the sword(or whatever weapon) shall perish by the weapon(or whatever weapon)'. For example if a person's counterargument is to always pull gun then someday that person will be shot in return and even killed.

However nowhere does Jesus say to completely give up a sword(or weapon). Now that I think about, the Apostle that got bit by that poisonous snake may have cut it down. Just because his faith protected him from the poison, it didn't mean everyone else had that kind of faith. By killing the snake it would prevent other travelers from being poisoned and dying from snake poison. . .which is a very painful way to die.

I am reading the Old Testament again this year. I am in Psalms right now. I didn't remember reading about the Israelites being tempted to give up their weapons. But that doesn't mean anything because I am shocked at how quickly I forget what I have read.

The reason why I am reading the Old Testament again is because my wife and I saw that animated movie, David produced by Angel studios. She asked me some questions about some of the event depicted in the movie and I flat out could not remember. So I decided I had better read it all again and I still can't remember half of it. I think if I had read the entire Bible cover to cover when I was young I would have remembered a lot more. But I didn't read much back then. Now I'm 68 and can't remember what I ate for breakfast half the time.

So now that you told me that I'm just going to have to start all over again as soon as I finish the Old and New Testament.

By the way, Jesus did tell his disciples to buy a sword and they didn't have money then need to sell their clothes to buy one. Jesus never told anyone to murder anyone but He did tell them that when he was gone they needed to defend themselves.

"Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." Luke 22:36 (KJV)

Ancient history from other sources besides what's in the Old Testament/Torah.

On the contrary Jesus told his disciples to buy illegal weapons and if they couldn't afford it, to sell the shirt off their back to buy one.

Maga needs to be reminded that liberals are humans with lives and families and friends. We are not sub-humans. We are not "less-evolved". We are human beings just like you. Just because we think different than you does not mean you have to murder us.

Yes, there are conservatives who want to take people's rights away

Yes, there are conservatives who want to lock people up in camps for being different

Yes, there are conservatives who are Nazis and fascists

"Yes, there are conservatives who want to take people's rights away"

First let me define what a right is. Far too many people do not understand the difference between a right and a privilege. Many times it is because they want something so bad they call it as right but it is actually a privilege.

A right is a freedom that does not infringe on someone else's right. This is why I have no right of ownership to your property because to take it would infringe on your private property rights. The same is true with the government, they have no rights to someone's private property.

A privilege is a freedom that does infringe on someone else's rights.

So before you blame conservative for taking away rights you first need to run the test of what is and is not a right.

Abortion is NOT a right. It is a privilege. You have to take the right to life of the unborn child to give the the freedom to have the child murdered. Just because a extremely liberal activist supreme court twisted logic to its near breaking point and rule that a child can be murdered if it is in the 1st trimester does not make that a right. Nor does the supreme court have the right to make law. They completely overstepped their authority but that wasn't the first nor is it the last time that has happened. And it ONLY happens when radical leftists are put on the supreme court and they have the majority.

Roe v Wade needed to be overturned because abortion is not a right and 2 seconds after it was ruled on women started having their babies murdered right up to and sometimes after the baby was born. And the supreme court did not have the authority to make that the law of the land. Our founders went to great extent trying to set up a system where we elect people who will represent us to create legislation. We were never ever supposed to have laws made by unelected government officials.

Now if you are talking about LGBT rights then you need to tell me what those are. I hear it all of the time but I just do not understand what rights they are missing. What extra rights do they need that the rest of us don't need?

"Yes, there are conservatives who want to lock people up in camps for being different"

When and where. Democrats have an actual history of locking up people of Japanese, German and Italian ancestry for no reason at all other than their ethnicity. No conservative has ever done anything like that, not even remotely.

Then there were the COVID lockdowns.

A right is something encoded and bestowed by law.

And....

"Yes, there are conservatives who are Nazis and fascists"

Not in America. Under the original definition of conservative by Thomas Hobbes and liberal by John Locke you could call a Nazi, a fascist, a communist or any other type of socialism a "classical conservative".

Prior to the progressive era of the late 19th and early 20th century all Americans called themselves liberals. There were no conservatives. During the Progressive era when all of the Marxist ideologies begin to infest the US. the Progressives grabbed the name "liberal" and told us that everyone else was a "conservative". This is when "modern liberalism" was created. It is the polar opposite of "classical liberalism". The same applies to the word conservative. Progressives clearly are classical conservative. All you need to do is understand who Thomas Hobbes is and what he taught.

Just before WWII the Progressives dumped any association they had with Nazis and fascists. That is when they called everyone who still believed in the founding principles of America a conservative, a Nazi and a fascist. It was all to distance themselves from those ideologies that they once praised.

When you look at everything all of the variations of socialism says they want, they are all essentially the same thing. And if they have minor policy differences they end result is the same.

Fascism was created by Giovanni Gentile and Benedetto Croce. Gentile said that fascism is socialism, just a better version of socialism. He let landowners and business owners keep their land and businesses but they were in complete control of the government. Benito Mussolini loved this idea, coming from a socialist background.

Hitler tried to copy Mussolini a little bit but rather than call himself a fascist, he kept the name socialist. Nazi is an acronym for National Socialist German Worker's Party.

This means that using logic, history, and their own actual words, Nazism and fascism cannot possibly be right wing ideologies. The right in America is still holding on the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights as the founders intended them. There is nothing Nazi or fascist about that.

Your insult is baseless but because you have the loudest microphone you have even convinced conservatives that nazis and fascists are a part of the right.

Democrats are now having their part infested with the DSA. YOU are the nazis and fascists.

My gosh, the stuff you make up.

Hitler drew inspiration from the United States Eugenics Movement and segregation in the Jim Crow South to turn his movement into the death cult that the Far Right & Alt Right/MAGA loves so much. If it wasn't for the Eugenics movement and segregation, Hitler would have just sat there twiddling his thumbs watching Mussolini to get his cues on what to do next. Ok, he probably would have sent troops to help Fascist Franco fight against the Communists in Spain, but that would have been it, that would have been Hitler's big war.

Nobody in the US prior to the 20th century call themselves Liberal. That is utter nonsense. Everybody was conservative. Even those who wanted to give women the right to vote and were for civil rights were basically conservatives and all other regards.

The rest of course is the usual repetition of fanfic nonsense.

Are you saying that Hitler took his inspiration from Democrats???? I think you are saying that. And you would not be wrong.

Yes, Hitler took his inspiration from democrats... They just agreed with you... LOL

All you have to do a look at history and you will see that the Democrats and Nazis didn't just share information they were essentially one in the same.

It's a hive mindset.

Let me check.
No, I'm not saying that. Hence why I didn't say it.

Hitler took his inspiration from the South.

Nope. It is pretty obvious to anyone that you were saying that Hitler took inspiration from American Democrats. You are not wrong on that either. Margaret Sanger, a Democrat, was an inspiration for Hitler.

I understand why you think she's one of your own, but actually she not only was not a Democrat, she was, now get this, for real, not kidding, for once you would have actually gotten it right but you actually didn't say it this time, but yes, Margaret Sanger was an actual real registered Socialist.

That's some feather to have under that cap, if you want to call it that. Hitler was inspired by Southerners, much of which were Democrats, or specifically, Southern Democrats.

"one of your own"???? I don't want her. You can have her.

Motte and Bailey fallacy ahh comment lol

If most of them had actually opposed slavery they wouldn't have founded this nation.

What? Your premise doesn't follow the statement you made. You may or may not be correct about most of them not opposing slavery, but that has nothing to do with the revolutionary war or the founding of the country. Read the declaration of independence for the actual reasons. Slavery wasn't mentioned or even around at that time.

Southern delegates were very adamant about ensuring slavery would continue in the United States and refused to join had it not been for the 20 year protection of trans-atlantic slave trading and the three fifths compromise

Besides WTF do you mean slavery wasn't even around at that time??? After 1492, the Columbian Exchange connected both eastern and western hemispheres and the middle passage was a component of that system which brought enslaved Africans to the colonies.

Do you know why slavery wasn't mentioned the Declaration of Independence? South Carolina and Georgia refused to sign the draft about it so Tommy J had to scrap it!!! Not to even mention that he himself owned 600+ slaves!!

Slavery wasn't around during the Revolution? Where, in Palau?

Back then it was "indentured servitude" and after a certain amount of time they were released.
The first US lifelong slave was in 1655. It wasn't until 1720 that it became widespread. So essentially right around the Revolutionary war times.

Are you for real?

That's straight from history.

No, it's not.

Um, where did he say that?

ok, read his comments again.

Or don't bother. I have no idea how you could possibly have missed that he's actually saying the complete opposite of what you're saying he did. The complete opposite.

Cristobal Colon. 1492. I'm the Modda that said that. Modda, that's me.

There is a whole lot more to history that you would need to understand before you can make an assumption like that. I would explain it to you but I think it is best if you studied the history of this nation in detail before you throw out blanket assumptions without understanding what happened. This is going to take you a while, maybe several years to get the full picture of what happened.

My only suggestion on that is start with the words of the people who lived back then. Not excerpts in a history book that was written in the last century. There have been several attempts to rewrite history in our colleges. There are some books out there that do have some interjections by the author but that is only to preface the actually words of the founding fathers.

You might want to start with "The Real..." series as in "The Real George Washington", "The Real Benjamin Franklin" and "The Real Thomas Jefferson". Also read the Federalist Papers. It will be hard to read because it is written in the English that was spoken at that time. Get your hands on as many original sources as you can and read those.

The more you read the more you will get a picture for who those men were. Which will eventually lead you to understand the circumstances of why they had to compromise on slavery.

BTW both George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, as you probably know, owned slaves. Both were citizens of Virginia. Both tried to free their slaves but was prevented by Virginia state law. Washington found a loophole in the law where you could free your slaves upon your death and that is what Washington did. That loophole was close before Jefferson died. When Jefferson was in the Virginia state legislature he tried several times to push legislation through that would allow slave owners to free their slaves. He was shut down by the rest of the state legislature.

Also don't be shocked if you find out that a black man who owned slaves sued in the English court in the mid 1600's to change indentured servitude to actual slavery. The difference is that indentured servitude the person you were indentured had to claim of ownership and most of the time the terms of the indenture were not permanent, even with people brought over from Africa. That change to permanent ownership of another human being in 1655(???) or there abouts. Also there were at one time about 30,000 black people who owned black slaves in America. And only about 7% of the population actually owned slaves.

Virginia law did not prevent Washington or Jefferson from freeing their slaves. In fact Jefferson freed a whopping 2 slaves while he was still alive and another 5 via his will after he died.

Slavery in the colonies began with Cristobal Colon in 1492.
In addition to the Spanish, the Portuguese, French, and Dutch had slaves in their colonies long before the British got here.

In the British colonies it began with Jamestown in 1619.

Actually permanent ownership of another human being was formerly made legal with Hugh Gwyn's ownership of John Punch in a ruling by the Virginia high court in 1640, 15 years prior to the case you referred to. Hugh Gwyn was Welsh. White.

This confusion of yours is what happens when you get your so-called history from memes made by the Far Right.

30,000 Africans did not own slaves, 3700 owned 30,000 slaves. A large number of those were actually family members who they bought in order to free them. Having ownership papers minimized the risk of them being recaptured and resold in the South by Whites, a not exceedingly rare practice.

Yeah and the Virginia Slave Codes of 1705 was when chattel slavery in the Americas were legally institutionalized, not from this one case of Anthony Johnson (his case was more of a dispute of property rather than the creation of systemic slavery)

And the reason why Jefferson didn't free all of his slaves was because they still counted as property and were used to cover his massive luxury debts

Yeah, I knew about Jefferson and debt, I just left it out to see if he was paying attention to what I was saying and to what he was saying and so to see if he would point it out.

Sometimes I leave what I call cherries in (or out), to see if they're paying attention. Little facts like that, or even entire counter-arguments to what I'm saying, just to see if they don't pick up on it and go with it.

But people are just so busy being contrarians that they'd rather argue against their own points rather than see what's right there in front of them to juice.

It's pretty evident that he's far more versed in the subject than you can never hope to wish to pretend you could ever be in your wildest dreams.

🤣🤣🤣🤣 You so funny.

Yes, I am.

...looking... muah ha ha ha... just kidding.

I can help summarize all of those paragraphs for you: complete BS

Yeah, that's what I thought. You're brainwashed and do not have a mind of your own.

If I were to continue arguing with an idiot, I'd only be proving that there are two

I never asked you to argue. I only asked you to think for yourself. Do your own homework. And because of that you call me an idiot. Do you know what the word "idiot" means?