Larry King Repeal 2nd Amendment ... It Was Passed to Fight Off Slaves

[Madmallard]

Larry King has an interesting tidbit for why the Second Amendment should be repealed -- and it's got to do with what he says is the real reason it was created ... to fight off slaves.

Larry King Says the Second Amendment Was Created to Fight Off Slave Uprisings

 

[Darth]

Considering the constitution actually did have blatantly racist amendments, to call the 2nd amendment one racist is absurd.

 

[STS556]

It amazes me that there as many interpretations of the 2A as there are idiot gun grabbers in this country. Its written plain and simple. And non of these liberals read the quote from George Washington where he says the 2A is also to protect ourselves from our own government. The level of stupidity from the grabbers is getting to scary high levels these days.

 

[kev74]

Larry who? Is he the guy who looks like a cross between the crypt keeper and a bobble head, who used to be on tv?

 

[ManrisFrack]

Wait a minute... I just saw a program on Andrew Jackson on the History Channel last night. It said that slavery was dying off in the early days of the US and Jackson helped it to explode by buying vast tracts of land and selling them to plantation owners. Which is it? Come on libbies, if you're gonna be historical revisionists, you need to get your stories straight first.

 

[Celt]

Blatant lies like this should be punishable by law. There will be countless people of all Races that read this and believe it to be true and we'll base there future votes on nonsense like this.

 

[Darth]

Blatant lies like this should be punishable by law. There will be countless people of all Races that read this and believe it to be true and we'll base there future votes on nonsense like this.

Ehh, that violates the 1A.

 

[Burzum]

Wait a minute... I just saw a program on Andrew Jackson on the History Channel last night. It said that slavery was dying off in the early days of the US and Jackson helped it to explode by buying vast tracts of land and selling them to plantation owners. Which is it? Come on libbies, if you're gonna be historical revisionists, you need to get your stories straight first.

Larry King, that ratfink who was charged with grand larceny back in the early 1970s, another dirtball has-been.

Anyway, there is a lot of revisionist history and the History Channel is not immune from half-truths (one of their retarded new programs showed German WW1 re-enactment soldiers in scenes using Enfields instead of Gew98s, Gew88s, or even captured Nagant 91s, portraying real battles, total BS).

Slavery was winding down by the late 18th century until a bright man, who forever now is wrongfully blamed for slavery expanding, named Ely Whitney with his cotton gin patented around 1794.

The cotton gin made slavery a lot more profitable, and yes at some point (decades later) growing plantations acquiring more land came into conflict with the Indians, but the Indians were not exactly peaceful, and they were in the Stone Age clashing with European-Americans in the Industrial Revolution---sucks for them.

Andrew Jackson was a great man, anybody who says otherwise can choke on a bag of dicks.

 

[libertysnake]

Hold on, you're telling me Larry King is still ALIVE? I call bullshit.

 

[Saltwater60]

Let me get this straight because. There are no slaves now we don’t have a right to own weapons anymore? I’m not following the logic.

 

[Celt]

Ehh, that violates the 1A.

@Darth - Not if its libel, and when journalists are intentionally dishonest they also dont deserve freedom of the press because they are acting as activists, not journalists.

Im no legal expert but when blatant lies are said with the intention to cause harm or damage to someone that is not protected speech.

Now, with that said I'm certainly not looking to infringe on the First Amendment, but there must be some recourse with how the media is blatantly lying with the intent to manipulate the public to persuade votes.

 

[ArmedCorgi]

What? A King talking about slaves?

 

[Burzum]

@Darth -

Now, with that said I'm certainly not looking to infringe on the First Amendment, but there must be some recourse with how the media is blatantly lying with the intent to manipulate the public to persuade votes.

The government regulates truth in advertising for commercial speech, the problem with political speech is the activist Supreme Court has made it nearly sacrosanct in the last 50 years.

On the one hand, perhaps throwing movie directors in jail because during WW1 they properly depicted the colonial British military as being scum of the earth, is not the idea of what Oliver Wendell Holmes stated as the "free exchange in the marketplace of ideas;" on the other hand we have a corrupt elite who virtually have a total monopoly on the major networks, purposefully pushing an agenda of lies to undermine the Bill of Rights.

So what do we do, we are a handful of angry patriots watching Animal Farm play out before our eyes?

 

[Shadow2]

So the founders needed 2A to prevent slaves who had absolutely no rights what so ever from getting guns? Yep makes total sense to me.

 

[Darth]

@Darth - Not if its libel, and when journalists are intentionally dishonest they also dont deserve freedom of the press because they are acting as activists, not journalists.

Im no legal expert but when blatant lies are said with the intention to cause harm or damage to someone that is not protected speech.

Now, with that said I'm certainly not looking to infringe on the First Amendment, but there must be some recourse with how the media is blatantly lying with the intent to manipulate the public to persuade votes.

You are allowed to lie. That's still protected speech.

As for the libel thing, that's generally against a specific entity, and I disagree with those laws, just like the fire in a crowed theatre "law."

Say whatever you want, but be prepared to accept the ramifications of it.

 

[NY Leatherneck]

Well I am a slave to buying gun shit. Must be true.

 

[Celt]

You are allowed to lie. That's still protected speech.

As for the libel thing, that's generally against a specific entity, and I disagree with those laws, just like the fire in a crowed theatre "law."

Say whatever you want, but be prepared to accept the ramifications of it.

I fully understand that people are allowed to lie and I don't think lying in general should be against the law. What I have a problem with is that there is a virtual monopoly with social media and conventional media being controlled by the activist left. And when their intent is to manipulate the vote with purposeful lies, that I have a problem with. I don't know what the real answer is, but it is beyond frustrating that they have so much power to lie ( with the intent to influence the vote) and manipulate which can in turn strip Americans of their rights.

But I get it, it's a slippery slope and I was speaking out of anger.

 

[Celt]

@Darth

Funny enough, right at this moment I'm listening to Breitbart News on satellite radio and they're talking exactly about this topic. How these massive corporations that have so much control over the information we see and have access to that something needs to be done about it but we have to be careful about how to go about it.

 

[Arjuna]

i thought he died 50 years ago

 

[libertysnake]

i thought he died 50 years ago

That which is undead cannot die.

 

[reinhardt]

He looks like an old lesbian.

 

[Cooolone]

"Unclear Language"???

Oooooops, I guess

"SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"

is open to interpretation... Is not really descriptive, nor explicit!


What are these people smoking!?!?

 

[GOPerfect]

He is an idiot. 2A had nothing to do with slaves. Pure lies.

At the time of writing, there was nothing racist about the wording in the founding documents.

Perception has changed over the years and now people think the FF were a bunch of haters, racists and bigots. All bullshit

 

[Arjuna]

 

[Dr. Evil]

Next you are going to tell me that Ginsberg is still alive lol.