Posted on 04/21/2023 1:33:11 PM PDT by Twotone
I wouldn’t mind seeing Lemon’s reaction if you were to tell him that it would take American (and Canadian) criminals, along with the few Adam Lanzas and Eric Harrises and Dylan Klebolds, hundreds of centuries to equal the number murdered by governments in just the twentieth century alone (Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot in particular) after they legally disarmed their citizens.
Ha-Ha! First person to call for an unscheduled Commercial Break loses. Pay up, Donny-O! You were running scared.
Only way they can debate. Shut him off. Cancel.
Supreme Court To Decide If Dred Scott Should Apply To All Americans On Guns
Ramaswamy should follow the adage: "Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience."
Hey, Lemon, F** off!
This token TWOT knows nothing about much of anything. Like BeijingBiden, if it weren’t for teleprompters they’d not know which new lie to tell.
Open carry was outlawed out here in CaCaLand when a bunch of uppity blacks showed up in a public street with guns. Law was immediately, within days, passed outlawing that. So, ‘Ell yeah gun laws are intended by the Democrats to oppress blacks. Blacks get killed more than any other group, ‘cause they live in blue cities that keep them from their human right to protect themselves. By design.
The Civil War was fought for State Rights vs. Federal Rights, same as today. Southern States wanted to retain their right to self determination in their laws and slavery happen to be one that they disagreed with the Union. There were many more.
“That war was not fought for black people to have guns.”
In any case maybe twenty years ago a history book I was using with my junior high kids had an illustration of Civil War era black family gathered outside of their shack/home. I asked the students if the people pictured were slaves or freemen. After a few minutes I point out the clue that they were, in fact, freemen: the shotgun propped up next to the door.
“Debating in a fair and honest manner” with Lemonade consists solely of making a sensible argument then giving way to Lemonaid’s argument. Head nodding agreement is he only proper debating style for someone “debating” a leftist.
“The War of Northern Aggression” is what I has taught in my 8th grades history class.
I’ve read that about the same percentage of freeman owned slaves as percentage of whites.
For us all:
by Jim Robinson
Wouldn’t it be great if we could complete this FReepathon in under 60 days? Please get your donations in early and let’s get ‘er done!
Thank you very much! Your support is greatly appreciated!
God bless you.
Absolutely correct. The Union States lacked the resources that were available in the south, but had most of the manufacturing ability. So the Northern States attempted to roll over Southern States and used their support of slavery as an excuse. After the South lost the War, the Northerners came down in droves (Carpetbaggers) to control the farming assets of the South. Originally, the South was supported by the French, but as usual, their partnership was based on winning only, not on principle. The Union States were ‘bending’ the Constitution even then to meet their requirements, while the Southern States fought for the U.S. Constitution as written, because that is what they agreed to when they joined the United States. Now the same states are trying to destroy the Constitution for the same reasons: It does not allow them to trample on the States Rights and stands in the way of their quest for power. “The War of Northern Aggresson” is more accurate from a Southern perspective, while the Northern States referred to it as the War of Rebellion, or Civil War.
Why don’t they ever bring up Nick Sandmann when CNN pulls this BS?
“... connect gun control and the oppression of black Americans.”
As much as I love President Reagan, it was due to the
Black Panthers showing up at protests with guns visible that prompted him to sign some of the early gun regulations in California.
BTW- Ramaswamy is great
This guy...Ramaswamy...interesting fella.
Bears some looning into, I think.
Yes, blacks were keen slaveowners. The first documented case of an American suing for the right to own another man for life was that of Anthony Johnson, a black man. He was born in Angola and came to the colony of Virginia as an indentured servant. He worked off his term of servitude then, as he grew wealthy growing tobacco, he began buying slaves of his own. He sued a neighbor for lifetime ownership of a slave named John Casor.
The Union States lacked the resources that were available in the south, but had most of the manufacturing ability.
After the war was lost, the South, which had been fairly wealthy had two huge problems. Much of their former wealth was in the value of the slaves held by the wealthy, but that wealth vanished with the passage of the 13th Amendment.
But it was a provision of the 14th Amendment that doomed the South economically. All debts, including currency issued by the CSA or any other the seceding states was null and void. Only US currency, gold and silver could pay debts, including real estate taxes. Carpetbaggers with lots of cash could buy up property for next to nothing since patriotic southerners had exchanged their gold and silver for Confederate bonds and banknotes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.