Constitutional Convention

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
And Anthony Johnson was more significant than “a single incident.”

He was, in fact, the first slave-owner in America. He OWNED a black man, as opposed to employing an indentured servant. And he was black.[/quote]

Why is this significant?[/quote]

Why is the fact that the first slave-owner in America was a black man significant? Really? During a debate about the racial motivations behind slavery in the United States, you have decided to ask why that is significant?

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

Good post. I thought everyone thought of militias as nothing more than a way to slow an invasion enough to get professionals there. I don’t think I’d ever even considered that some people believe that those who support militias/armed citizens think an invasion could be completely repelled by guys coming home from their 8-5s and fighting for a few hours before bedtime. Even if a people were to rely solely upon a militia in peacetime, an invasion would create demand for a large number of full-time soldiers.

I guess that I have always viewed a militia as something like a locked door- it hardens the target, but it can’t be the sole means of defending the interior of the home.[/quote]

Well, the colonists clearly believed in the concept of the citizen soldier (aka militia), and that they would be able to repel the Redcoats (They did not; in fact the citizen soldiers sucked real bad).

And the reasons they sucked is why I don’t necessarily believe in the rationales for a militia that Mikeyali gave.

Anyways, I can’t claim to know why modern hardcore militia people believe in militias. Based on comments I’ve seen here and there though, some people genuinely seem to believe that they and a bunch of like-minded people can give the U.S. army a good fight in an armed rebellion with just their AR-15.[/quote]

First off, hardcore militia people who believe in militias believe in them for the same reason that the writers of our original constitutions believed in them: because they realized that a standing army could be used as a tool of tyranny against the civilian population. History has shown this to be true. Perhaps not as much, yet, in the United States, but true nonetheless.

Second, I can’t tell if Thunder is being willfully ignorant in his implying that Mikeyali’s constitution would leave the nation wide open to invasion and conquest by Papua New Guinea, but my reading of it does not leave me with this impression. The army and navy would still exist. The Marine Expeditionary Corps would exist. A new branch of the military, the Frontier Corps, would also be created. These would be federal forces, with presumably the same class of weaponry and training as American military forces have always enjoyed.

Alongside these federal forces, each state (or territory, rather) would be responsible for training and equipping its own territorial militia, staffed with the same calibre of individual, providing the same training and equivalent weaponry as their federal counterparts.

IN ADDITION to the regular federal armed forces and territorial militia, every individual, including those NOT in a militia or the military, would have the right to PRIVATELY OWN any military weapon in current use, and its ammunition, up to and including, but not exceeding, projectiles and explosive devices with a kill radius of ten meters.

In other words, a highly militarized society armed to the fucking teeth.

And Mexico and Papua New Guinea are going to invade and conquer whom, how, exactly?

(Jefferson, am I misconstruing anything here?)

[quote]NickViar wrote:
Why is the fact that the first slave-owner in America was a black man significant? Really? During a debate about the racial motivations behind slavery in the United States, you have decided to ask why that is significant?[/quote]

I have indeed.

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:
Why is the fact that the first slave-owner in America was a black man significant? Really? During a debate about the racial motivations behind slavery in the United States, you have decided to ask why that is significant?[/quote]

I have indeed.[/quote]

And it’s a good question.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:
Why is the fact that the first slave-owner in America was a black man significant? Really? During a debate about the racial motivations behind slavery in the United States, you have decided to ask why that is significant?[/quote]

I have indeed.[/quote]

And it’s a good question.[/quote]

Seconded.

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:
Why is the fact that the first slave-owner in America was a black man significant? Really? During a debate about the racial motivations behind slavery in the United States, you have decided to ask why that is significant?[/quote]

I have indeed.[/quote]

It shows that slavery in America was not the racial issue we were taught to believe. Blacks owned slaves. Whites and European immigrants WERE slaves. Slavery just was. Hell, slavery still IS; it is just heavily subsidized now.

[quote]NickViar wrote:
Hell, slavery still IS; it is just heavily subsidized now. [/quote]

In what way?

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:
Hell, slavery still IS; it is just heavily subsidized now. [/quote]

In what way?[/quote]

You keep what you’re allowed to keep. You go where you’re allowed to go. You do what you’re allowed to do. Slavery just is. It’s subsidized in the way that those not wealthy enough to own slaves still help pay for them.

*Edit: I know that nobody on this board is a slave. We would all die way before allowing ourselves to become slaves, of course.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:
Hell, slavery still IS; it is just heavily subsidized now. [/quote]

In what way?[/quote]

The thirteenth amendment allows enslavement as punishment for a crime, which, considering the demographics of the prison population, makes federal, state and county prisons collectively the largest owner of black slaves in the world.

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:
Hell, slavery still IS; it is just heavily subsidized now. [/quote]

In what way?[/quote]

The thirteenth amendment allows enslavement as punishment for a crime, which, considering the demographics of the prison population, makes federal, state and county prisons collectively the largest owner of black slaves in the world.[/quote]

…more directly, there’s that.

[quote]NickViar wrote:

It shows that slavery in America was not the racial issue we were taught to believe. Blacks owned slaves.[/quote]

Explain to me how this is so.

[quote]NickViar wrote:
Whites and European immigrants WERE slaves. [/quote]

Explain to me how this makes slavery not actually a racial issue.

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:
Why is the fact that the first slave-owner in America was a black man significant? Really? During a debate about the racial motivations behind slavery in the United States, you have decided to ask why that is significant?[/quote]

I have indeed.[/quote]

It shows that slavery in America was not the racial issue we were taught to believe. Blacks owned slaves. Whites and European immigrants WERE slaves. Slavery just was. Hell, slavery still IS; it is just heavily subsidized now. [/quote]

No, it doesn’t show that. Slavery existed for thousands of years, but what was the American experience? Unquestionably, a race based system of chattel slavery. Blacks were presumed to be slaves, and even those that no longer were were disenfranchised and limited in society.

Exceptions to a rule don’t disprove the rule. This should be common sense. A black man owning another black man? That doesn’t disprove the rule that America had race-based slavery. Indians also owned slaves, as did Jews. So? That doesn’t change the general rule.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Slavery existed for thousands of years, but what was the American experience? Unquestionably, a race based system of chattel slavery…
[/quote]

As the champions of American slavery themselves spent sea upon sea of ink meticulously describing, justifying, and defending. Anybody who thinks different hasn’t done the reading.

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Slavery existed for thousands of years, but what was the American experience? Unquestionably, a race based system of chattel slavery…
[/quote]

As the champions of American slavery themselves spent sea upon sea of ink meticulously describing, justifying, and defending. Anybody who thinks different hasn’t done the reading.[/quote]

Exactly. Precisely. This isn’t conjecture or theory - consult those champions and take them at their word. Hell, read the secession declarations. Couldn’t be plainer.

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:
Hell, slavery still IS; it is just heavily subsidized now. [/quote]

In what way?[/quote]

You keep what you’re allowed to keep. [/quote]

What is it that I’m not allowed to keep, once I acquire it?

Where am I prevented from going?

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:
Hell, slavery still IS; it is just heavily subsidized now. [/quote]

In what way?[/quote]

The thirteenth amendment allows enslavement as punishment for a crime, which, considering the demographics of the prison population, makes federal, state and county prisons collectively the largest owner of black slaves in the world.[/quote]

…more directly, there’s that.[/quote]

So criminals are now slaves?
Owned property with no protected rights?

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:
Hell, slavery still IS; it is just heavily subsidized now. [/quote]

In what way?[/quote]

The thirteenth amendment allows enslavement as punishment for a crime, which, considering the demographics of the prison population, makes federal, state and county prisons collectively the largest owner of black slaves in the world.[/quote]

…more directly, there’s that.[/quote]

So criminals are now slaves?
Owned property with no protected rights?[/quote]

Some of this is just plain silly. Prisoners as slaves?

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:
Hell, slavery still IS; it is just heavily subsidized now. [/quote]

In what way?[/quote]

The thirteenth amendment allows enslavement as punishment for a crime, which, considering the demographics of the prison population, makes federal, state and county prisons collectively the largest owner of black slaves in the world.[/quote]

…more directly, there’s that.[/quote]

So criminals are now slaves?
Owned property with no protected rights?[/quote]

Some of this is just plain silly. Prisoners as slaves?
[/quote]

Agreed. I’m certainly a default “government is not the solution” type of person. As in the first question I ask typical goes something like: “is government the best way to handle this?” Right, wrong or indifferent, the answer is sometimes yes.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:
Hell, slavery still IS; it is just heavily subsidized now. [/quote]

In what way?[/quote]

The thirteenth amendment allows enslavement as punishment for a crime, which, considering the demographics of the prison population, makes federal, state and county prisons collectively the largest owner of black slaves in the world.[/quote]

…more directly, there’s that.[/quote]

So criminals are now slaves?
Owned property with no protected rights?[/quote]

Some of this is just plain silly. Prisoners as slaves?
[/quote]

Whether you think it’s silly or not, it is in the Constitution.

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

What is a slave? A servant who is not allowed to refuse your orders, not allowed to leave your employ of his own free will, and dependent upon you for everything.

Prisoners are slaves.