RiverRaider

BST Users
  • Content count

    98,016
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    9

Everything posted by RiverRaider

  1. Longish story short I'm replacing a relatively new (7-8 years old) unit. What would you do with the old one? Just Let the HVAC guy deal with it (as in get it out of the basement and take it wherever they take relatively new furnaces ) Consensus here?
  2. You still pushing the ridiculous idea that AOC isn't one of the most influential members of Congress ? She is
  3. Oh Brother... Tells us what that might look like
  4. What I find odd is that so many people can't understand how both those things are perfectly true at the same time
  5. I think we, as a nation, are better than what CRT espouses Most of it certainly
  6. We had a short discussion yesterday about how Critical Race Theory proponents and Proponents of the 1619 Project were eroding the 1st. Amendment Now it's the 2nd. This nonsense has taken a while to gain traction bit gaining traction it is The 1619 Project Comes for the Second Amendment By DAVID HARSANYI June 8, 2021 6:30 AM If the right to bear arms was intended to preserve slavery, why did civil-rights leaders insist that black Americans should be armed to protect themselves? Left-wing academic Carol Anderson’s new book, The Second: Race and Guns in a Fatally Unequal America, is all over the news. “The Second Amendment is not about guns — it’s about anti-Blackness, a new book argues,” reads a CNN headline. NPR claims that the author has uncovered the racist “roots” of the Second Amendment. This is wishful thinking. The Second is an attempt — much like the 1619 Project — to reimagine history in purely racial terms. The result is tendentious polemic that suffers not only from a paucity of historical evidence, but from a dishonest rendering of the facts we do know. After comprehensively detailing the constitutional debate over slavery and the nefariousness of that institution, Anderson takes the liberty of asserting that the Second Amendment was “not some hallowed ground but rather a bribe, paid again with Black bodies.” This is a contention that isn’t backed by a single contemporaneous quote or piece of hard evidence in the book. Indeed, Anderson ignores the tradition of militias in English common law — codifying the “ancient and indubitable” right in the 1689 English Bill of Rights — which had nothing to do with chattel slavery. Anderson ignores the fact that nearly every intellectual, political, and military leader of the Founding generation — many of whom had no connection to slavery — stressed the importance of self-defense in entirely different contexts. It was slavery skeptic John Adams, in his 1770 defense of Captain Thomas Preston, one of the soldiers responsible for the Boston Massacre, who argued that even British soldiers had an inherent right to defend themselves from mobs. “Here every private person is authorized to arm himself, and on the strength of this authority, I do not deny the inhabitants had a right to arm themselves,” he noted. When Pennsylvania became the first colony to explicitly guarantee the right to bear arms, it was Benjamin Franklin, by then an abolitionist, who presided over the conference. It was the anti-slavery Samuel Adams who proposed that the Constitution never be used to “authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.” In the writings and speeches of nearly all American Founders, the threat of disarmament was a casus belli. In making her case that the Second Amendment was predominantly an invention of the South, Anderson stresses that most American jurisdictions did not even have their own Second Amendment before the constitutional convention. She’s right. Many anti-Federalists believed that enshrining these rights on paper would lead to future abuses. Of course, Southerners didn’t need permission to suppress black slave revolts, anyway. They had done so on numerous occasions before the nation’s founding. Yet, by 1791, of the four jurisdictions that had written their own Second Amendments, three of them — Vermont, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania — had already abolished slavery. When Vermont authored its first constitution in 1777, in fact, it protected the right to keep and bear arms in the same document that it banned slavery. The author frames the quote as if Madison, the author of the Bill of Rights, had said it himself — or, if we’re being generous, that it’s a fair representation of his views. When you follow the book’s endnote, however, it leads to a 1998 paper titled “The Hidden History of the Second Amendment,” written by anti-gun activist Carl T. Bogus, who shares Anderson’s thesis. It is his quote. Nowhere does Bogus offer any sample of Madison declaring, or even implying, that slave control was the impetus for the Second Amendment. In another instance, again relying on Bogus’s paper, Anderson declares that among his “great rights,” Madison discusses only “trial by jury, freedom of the press, and ‘liberty of conscience,’” and that the right to bear arms does not even “make the list.” This, too, is extraordinarily misleading, as the quote comes from a Madison speech proposing the Bill of Rights in June 1789. Early in his argument, Madison mentions, in passing, some of the “great rights,” before literally listing — “fourthly,” in fact, right after freedom of religion and assembly — the “right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.” As I read The Second, I kept thinking how easily it could be reedited to make a compelling book about the immorality of stripping Americans of their rights. After all, gun control was inextricably tied to racism in the 19th and 20th centuries. In 1834, the State of Tennessee revised its constitution from “That the freemen of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence” to “That the free white men of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence.” A number of Southern states followed suit. Which is one of the reasons that Michigan senator Jacob Howard, when introducing the 14th Amendment ensuring that the constitutional rights of blacks in the South were protected, specifically pointed to “the personal rights guaranteed and secured by the first eight amendments to the Constitution,” as in the freedom of speech and of the press and “the right to bear arms” (italics mine). Civil-rights leaders of the 19th and early 20th centuries also lamented that the right to self-defense was denied them. Fredrick Douglass reacted to the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 by editorializing that the best remedy would be “a good revolver, a steady hand, and a determination to shoot down any man attempting to kidnap.” The late-19th-century civil-rights leader Ida B. Wells argued that one of the lessons of the post–Civil War era, “which every Afro American should ponder well, is that a Winchester rifle should have a place of honor in every black home, and it should be used for that protection which the law refuses to give.” T. Thomas Fortune, another black civil-rights activist of the era, argued that it was with a Winchester that the black man could “defend his home and children and wife.” Now, it should be noted that even if the Second Amendment had been specifically written, as Anderson maintains, under pressure from states in the South that wished to preserve the subjugation of humans, the nation’s sin would have been denying the inalienable right of self-defense to all people. We don’t attack the idea of free speech simply because people are denied its protections. That fact only accentuates its importance. For most of our history, self-defense was also seen as an immutable right that existed with or without the sanction of the state. “Remember that the musket — the United States musket with its bayonet of steel — is better than all mere parchment guarantees of liberty,” is how Douglass made the case for natural rights. He did it better than many of the Founders. Certainly, he did it better than Anderson. 28
  7. The Science isn't the problem its the politics influencing the science that's the problem Just because You believe in Science doesn't mean you should believe Scientist's
  8. Because virtue signaling is all the rage I'm actually surprised it took so long
  9. The official name of the holiday was chosen to be divisive… otherwise great
  10. White Supremacists or White Supremacy ?
  11. Agree or Disagree ? Juneteenth is 'perfect answer' to critical race theory: Heritage Foundation president Congress passed bill making Juneteenth federal holiday, sending it to President Biden's desk Many on the left are attempting to use Juneteenth to push an anti-American agenda and racial division, but the holiday has always been a day for recognizing America as an exceptional nation, says the leader of the Heritage Foundation, a prestigious conservative think tank. "Juneteenth is a perfect answer to those who are promoting critical race theory," Kay C. James, president of the Heritage Foundation, said in an interview with Fox News. "Juneteenth says, no, we do not need to destroy the very structures of this nation, the things that make us great. That while there were issues or problems in our history, look at how we overcame and are overcoming them." June 19, 1865, also called Freedom Day and Emancipation Day, was the day Union soldiers enforced President Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation and freed all remaining slaves in Texas. It was two months after the South’s official surrender in the Civil War and two and a half years after the proclamation went into effect. On Wednesday, Congress passed a bill making Juneteenth a federal holiday in a 415-14 vote in the House one day after the bill passed in the Senate. The day represents a critical turning point in American history, said James. It was the day that America finally began to live up to one of its greatest principles: a nation devoted to liberty for all. "For me and I hope for most Americans, it's a holiday that we can all celebrate because it says that we as a nation recognize that the institution of slavery was in absolute conflict with our very core principles and values from our founding, and that Americans fought an entire war to get rid of the institution of slavery," said James. While some use Juneteenth to push their "Hate America" agenda, the conservative leader pointed out, Juneteenth is a day for recognizing the greatness of America: That, though flawed, America was built on humanity’s highest ideals and endowed with a constitutional framework that allowed it to right its wrongs throughout history. "I do believe that there is a contradiction going on in the heart of many Americans right now," James said in regards to those who celebrate Juneteenth while also promoting ideas like critical race theory and the 1619 Project, which claim that America remains systemically racist. James, a Black woman who has served as president of America’s leading conservative organization for three years, believes conservatives need to "step into this moment." "This is not a moment that I shy away from in our American history and in our American culture," said James. "As conservatives, we believe in human flourishing. We believe in lifting people out of poverty, finding solutions to the education gap in this country. We know how to provide better access to health care." "One of the biggest battles" facing conservatives in the debate over race in America "is separating out those individuals who say, ‘If you're against critical race theory, you therefore by default are a racist,’" said James. "We have to diffuse that. "For anyone interested in having a genuine, sincere conversation about where we are as a nation - if you genuinely care about solving racial problems in America – ask a conservative to really explain to you why critical race theory is not appropriate."
  12. Frank: I don't know enough about CRT to form an opinion Also Frank: People shouldn't oppose CRT
  13. Any mention in this thread as to why some of these these Rep's voted against this ? I've not read each post but I'm guessing no one has discussed the rationale offered There were several, but one in particular is worth discussion
  14. Seriously Though... It's not like anyone is going to forget that Democrats' are only narrowly pro-cop when it's politically expedient
  15. You were correct in your assertion amd never argued the data
  16. What was the cause?
  17. Still though...
  18. You clearly put zero effort into this post
  19. Maybe he doesn't want to have kids taught that they are either Victims or Victimizer (?)
  20. Just because CRT has proved to be a useful political wedge doesn't mean that people shouldn't be concerned about the detrimental impact it would have on America Shining a continued spotlight on it it is Important on a couple different levels
  21. "Moderate Democrats" in the PG don't understand this evidently
  22. I agree... what would be the right word?