Stop criticizing the Constitution

>doesn't understand what the OP is actually saying

>This is why Cell's final form was called Perfect Cell. Not because he was the best Cell but because he was completed.
Dragon Ball wasn't written in Latin you nerd.

>hurr durr it's all wrong because i say so

>more approximate to an ideal society
>closer to being the best
>better

>Puckle Gun
Essentially a black powder flintlock version of a Gatling Gun

>Girandoni Air Rifle
A repeating and lethal air rifle with a capacity of 21 rounds, and was used on the Louis and Clark Expedition.

>Those who were not of the Navy but owned ships were allowed to acquire literal cannons
This is a thing.

Anyways, if those who fight against the 2nd amendment were to look at the 1st amendment with the same logic of "it's meant for muskets and not modern firearm technology" then they should forthwith surrender their cell phones and computers because clearly the Founding Fathers never meant for someone to be able to contact so many people so easily so as to spread views and ideas. Really, the 1st amendment was made in a time when you could only send letters.

I'd also like to add that the 2nd amendment was indeed created for the purpose of defending the nation against threats foreign or domestic, for it were the Founding Fathers who had to fight off a tyrannical and oppressive force. If Hillary had become President and decided it was time to try and disarm the populous (just as Stalin had done (20 million kill count), Mao (100 million kill count), and Hitler (6 million kill count) had done), then it would be time to load those STANDARD capacity 30 round mags in those modern-looking AR-15s to fight back and maintain their RIGHTS. A right is not something that can be taken away, privileges ARE. In the United States, it is an American's RIGHT to keep and bear arms. In Canada, it is a Canadian's PRIVILEGE, and we don't have truly free speech up here. There's legislation on the go that could see me jailed for merely intentionally misgendering someone. If such is the case, then if someone called me a woman, I could call the cops on them.

So, from a Canadian, I'd say Americans should be DAMN PROUD of those first 2 amendments, and anyone who doesn't like them do not represent the Founding Fathers of that great nation and should promptly BUGGER OFF! I'm looking at you, Jimmy Kimmel! Don't come up here though; there's enough retarded leftists in the Great White North. We had a good thing with Harper but now we're getting cucked up by Trudeau.

>American hours on Veeky Forums
>they want to talk about attacking a non-book
>they probably don't even have the right sheet of paper
>they probably mean stop attacking the bill of rights which is a series of attacks on the constitutional limits of government in the US

YASSSSS QUEEN SLAAAAYYY MY BODY MY CHOICE

all bookfags must be destroyed to preserve the redpill

>one of these days the mainstream will be smart instead of dumb
looks like someone is still in university ;^)

Well what do you think would happen if someone just came out and said, "Hey, guys, rights aren't real, they don't actually exist."?

The rights come from God, not the parchment. What's written on the parchment serves the purpose of enumerating the best possible interpretation of God's law to be enacted.
>bongs think God literally slipped them their laws through the clouds
top bucktooth'd kek
>not just perfect, but MORE PERFECT lol fucking colonial hick morons
This nigga thinks a perfect stranger is a platonic person you're not acquainted with.

youtube.com/watch?v=gaa9iw85tW8

Never takes long for reddit to drop in

>the rights come from God
>society is fundamentally materialistic atheism
hmm

what's your point? i was to make the point that somebody (not just george either) have said what the poster was constructing. what was your point, exactly? you don't like carlin? nice, opinion noted
>people who enjoy things i don't are reddit!

You mean like the whole world, at this point?

So what's the point of embedding our supposed rights in the will of a divine creator if society operates under the assumption that said creator does not exist?

A bit......kafkaesque...no..?
;)

>what's the point of doing something nearly 300 years ago if things are different today
This board ought to be deleted

our rights are being maintained under the same premises today brainlet
the only thing that aught to be deleted is your brain from cyber space

>our rights are being maintained
allow me to laugh at you

S E E T H I N G

>the only thing that aught
report'd

>One of these healthy skepticism will be taken against a thing I like
>I think the world will end shortly after

Are you me? ffs I can't be the only unironic loyalist.

The USA shouldn't even exist.

>Bongs are STILL this buttflustered over two hundred years later

No.
t. Schmitt

>anything we allow them
>loses to them
>dies

>he doesn't read Dragon Ball in the Latin translation and watch the Latin dub

this is retarded
are you that dumbass from Veeky Forums

thanks bud I needed a good laugh
upvoted :>)

To be fair, more Americans died during the American Revolutionary War than Brits. Also, Africa was more valuable at the time than what American land was available. Keep in mind that the bulk of the land was still ruled by the Natives, in fact I doubt the Europeans had even stepped foot on the west coast of North America yet by the late 1700s. Correct me if I'm wrong. There's also the fact that it was England vs America, and all the fighting was taking place in America... meaning that the English had to go across the Atlantic Ocean in a time that was basically before frigates in order to bring news to the homeland, to get more supplies/troops, and so on and so forth. Ships o' th' Line.

Anyways, I used to have a mindset where I'd find this very funny, perhaps even truthful. I can understand the hypocrisy that Americans used to have slaves in spite of being "the land of the free", but almost everyone had slaves in the 18th century. It wasn't until the 19th century that pushes were truly made to abolish it. True, the Americans held on tight and it took a hugely bloody war to finally give up slavery but they still gave it up in the end. In the end however, the US still has within it true freedom, and much of the west might have a KIND of freedom but to my knowledge the only place with TRUE freedom of speech that cannot be taken away is the United States of America. The same goes with the right to arm one's self and defend one's self with lethal force, which in my opinion, in spite of what the Brady Campaign has to say, is common sense. In Canada, where I'm from, Ian Thomson living in a very rural area had to get his .38 revolver from his safe when a bunch of masked bastards started fire bombing his house with Molotov cocktails. He's an ex-firearm instructor, he could have put them down if he wanted to I'm certain, but he only shot two rounds; one at the ground and one at a tree. All the thugs escaped, I don't even know if the RCMP tried to get them, but Ian had to fight for YEARS, going into debt from lawyer fees, just to stay out of prison. Thankfully, in the end, the charges were dropped, but as mentioned it was at a grave cost. As far as I'm concerned Canada would be a better country if he killed all those fuckers caught on film fire-bombing his home.

In the UK and Australia, they implimented huge bans that removed semi-autos and pistols, which resulted in spikes in crime before crime leveled off to a point that was typical prior to the bans. In short, they were ineffective, except in that it violated the people's freedom, forcing them to give up some of their possessions in spite of having never broken the law, and in some cases those individuals subsequently had their homes invaded, unable to defend themselves. The 1st and 2nd amendments are RIGHTS, not privileges, and they cannot be taken away. Now THAT is freedom.

Hi. Thanks for the reply. I actually love America and I think it's great that our two countries can now joke about things like the American War of Independence (while regretting the loss of life). Still, I think Johnson had a point. Slavery ended in England in 1772 and was eventually abolished throughout the British Empire in 1833. Though of course I agree that all countries had slaves at one time or another, I think Britain has more than made up for its participation in the slave trade. Slavery was booming by the time we abolished it, and it would have been in our economic interest to expand it, like America did. The Royal Navy captured 1,600 slave ships and freed 150,000 Africans between 1808 and 1860. The Amistad and Creole cases are good examples of times when Britain fought for liberty when America wouldn't. Frederick Douglass noted that on leaving America in 1845 for Britain, he would be sailing from "American republican slavery, to monarchical liberty”. I get that what's done is done, but this whole idea of a country fighting for freedom while actively blocking attempts to curb their slave trade just irks me. Anyway, I agree with everything you said about free speech and guns. Well, to an extent. There was a time in England when we had very lax gun laws and we were a relatively safe country. It is true that crime is seriously out of control in this country. It's not just due to the gun ban though. Free speech and various other civil liberties are ancient customs of Parliament and were defended by the likes of Edward Coke and John Milton. But our politicians don't care about the sacrifices made by these people. Our previous Prime Minister didn't even know what the Magna Carta stood for.

Oh there's no doubting that Britain did more to abolish slavery than America, but I think a truly unifying factor is that we still abolished slavery by the mid-1800s pretty much throughout the west. Meanwhile, in the Middle East, there's still slavery today. Nitpicking on such things as who got rid of slavery first or who died more during certain wars and what not, it's so minute when you consider the Middle East that we might as well be arguing in regards to which is better; the No.4 Lee Enfield used by Canada and Britain in WWII or the M1 Rifle used by America. They're both fantastic rifles, they both have advantages and disadvantages (though arguably the M1 has more advantages but none the less), it's ultimately a non-issue. We still defeated Nazi Germany, or at least helped a lot in hammering the west flank while the Soviets, who had been directly fighting the Nazis for longer, captured and eventually fought into Berlin on the east flank. If the Germans didn't have to worry about the west flank, if D-Day never happened, then the Soviets would have had a far tougher time.

It still amazes me how much I've changed over the past year or two. I was so ridiculously anti-American... took me a long time to completely shake off all those leftists views that the media and high school cooked up.

I 100% agree with everything you've said. Of course the left will say that slavery in the Middle East and Africa is a legacy of empire or some other bullshit. Mugabe continues to blame Britain for the starvation and economic turmoil that has been affecting Zimbabwe for decades now. Something that has been inherent in leftism since it originated in the French Revolution is its belief that people should see themselves as citizens of the world rather than as members of any particular community. This, I'm afraid, is a very common belief in academic circles.

what book is the image?

i always ask leftists "well who sold the slaves?"
it's like they hold the negro to a lower moral standard or something...

Leftism originated in the French Revolution? There was no leftism during the American War of Independence or back during the English Civil War in the 17th century? I'm going to have to research that a bit before I believe it. Anyways seems like we're more-or-less on the same page.

Leftists DO hold blacks to a lower standard, which is why Affirmative Action exists. They also hold women to such a low standard that they basically don't want them to be held responsible for their own actions. Foolishness. A man and a woman get drunk, they have sex, and yet leftists would tell you the man raped the woman even though he might be every bit as drunk or possibly MORE drunk than her. Similarly if a woman blows a dude while he's sleeping or passed out, it's not seen as rape, yet if a guy fondled a drunk chick and sucked her nipples and/or licked her cunt then he's a vile molester.

The real racism is in the left, not the right. I don't believe in Affirmative Action, I believe in a meritocracy. Asians tend to do better in school and tend to generally make more money than white Americans, and I think that should remain. They've earned it. Meanwhile, whites generally put more value in school and hard work than blacks, it's just how our cultures differ, but it's the left you can largely thank for giving the blacks this toxic cuture. You can hear it in gangsta rap. Glorifies gangs (which in turn glorifies crime), gang violence (bustin' caps), disrespect to women (fuck bitches and hoes, which goes towards more single mothers, which the welfare state and bias-towards-women in divorce court also contributes to single moms which overall leads to less productive children), and so on and so forth.

The left would have blacks think that no matter how hard they try, they won't succeed, so don't even bother. Just get on welfare, go to Section 8 housing, and be sure to vote Democrat so that you can get more free shit. Meanwhile on the right, Conservatives like myself, we say that blacks have EVERY opportunity that we have. There may not be equal outcome, but there is absolutely equal opportunity. You need not look any further than James Earl Jones, his father, Morgan Freeman, Wesley Snipes (though he broke the law and subsequently suffered for it, which is just), Richard Pryor (God rest him), and Barrack fucking Obama. Bull SHIT black people don't have as much opportunity as white people! There are MILLIONS of white people that will NEVER get as wealthy as any of those black men, and I support that, because there are MILLIONS of white people who won't WORK as hard as those black men or won't think entrepreneurial enough or otherwise simply isn't as intelligent or talented! Yet bonehead leftists would claim that I, a self-proclaimed right-wing Conservative, is the racist.

The English and Their History by Robert Tombs.

Well, its hard to say. The terms left and right were coined during the French Revolution. Of course we could talk about the Diggers or we could go even further back and talk about Thomas More. The English Civil War was a very confusing period in English history. With the French Revolution you finally get a clear idea of what left and right mean through great writers such as Burke and Paine.

what happened with the american negro is really a tragedy of the worst kind. they had the cultural vitality to produce throat searing, soul howling blues and very innovative jazz to barbarism after the '60s with welfare, drugs and political illiteracy

>The power up screams are gregorian chants

>You can hear it in gangsta rap. Glorifies gangs (which in turn glorifies crime), gang violence (bustin' caps), disrespect to women (fuck bitches and hoes, which goes towards more single mothers, which the welfare state and bias-towards-women in divorce court also contributes to single moms which overall leads to less productive children), and so on and so forth.

different user here, I've been reading both of your posts ITT and agreed with you 'til here. You sound like an out of touch baby boomer. I admit there are definitely problems in the black community but just to blame it on rap music? lol just lol.

You're exactly like those parents that blamed Marilyn Manson for the Columbine shooting.

The American War of Independence is even more confusing when it comes to defining left and right. Burke supported it. I don't know much about American history, but I do know Jefferson is generally considered a liberal whereas Hamilton is seen as a being more conservative. americanaffairsjournal.org/2017/05/what-is-conservatism/ This is a great article. It should clear things up.

I'm not an American so I'm not heavily vested in it but the constitution reoriented the American Revolution in a fundamentally conservative direction it didn't need to take. The richest men in the country secretly got together and scraped the Articles of Confederation to centralize power to protect creditor interests... that seems totally crazy as if today Mark Zuckerberg, Oprah, etc got together behind closed doors to scrap the constitution and replace it with their own document and no one saw anything weird about it.

But that's right. The distribution of modern weapon systems is heavily concentrated in a way it couldn't be in the early 19th century. Only Bill Gates could probably afford a nuclear weapon... and I don't particularly just mean firearms/projectiles/etc but e.g. neurological warfare or other potential developments which could lead to forms of tyranny emitting from different organizations.
Concentrated wealth is the source of political power today but as long as bubba thinks his pistol guarantees him liberty against the men in black you're going to have a docile population. Modern technological developments really does change the fundamental presumptions of how to defend against tyranny either from private corporations or governments.

More like Jefferson was a "utopian" whereas Hamilton was a "realist".

Note how I said 'gangsta rap'. I've heard some rap, like much of Eminem's, that does not glorify gang violence and arrogance, but what I've heard of the gangsta form of rap specifically has been horrendous. I'm not going to blame it ALL on gangsta rap, but it demonstrates how the values of black culture has fallen tremendously since the 60s. Also, I'm a long ways from even being 40 years old, let alone the age of the youngest baby boomers... what would that be, anyways? The youngest of the boomers must be at least 50.

A lot of what defines leftism today is big Government, while the right generally want small Government. Based on this, from today's economy, the Founding Fathers would be thoroughly rightwing since they were all about gun ownership and Christianity and what not. Though back then, it's very possible that the political spectrum is different. The modern far-left has altered things to the point that even classical Liberals could be considered practically Conservative, and thus according to the far-left, racist/sexist/fascist/Nazi/etc. So it's possible that in the late 18th century, before the French Revolution, the political spectrum was simply all in today's Conservative half. Funny though, the Democrats of the mid-19th century were quite adamant about slave-owning generally, while it was the Republicans of the mid-19th century that were more leaning towards freeing them, though part of it was so that it would disrupt the Southern States in some way.

Well whatever the case, back to the late 1700s, what if we included the Loyalists? Perhaps the Loyalists were the left-wingers who wanted bigger Government while the Rebels were the right-wingers who wanted to break off from the British Monarchy and establish their own basic system of laws? Free speech, gun ownership, meritocracy, capitalism, and so on and so forth. Funny thing; I've been learning a lot about religion in the past few months and having found so much in the Islamic Quran that supports war and killing, I looked for that in the Christian Bible. The closest I could find (though I can't remember where in the book I read it) was "if a thief breaks into your home in the dead of night, and is struck a fatal blow, then it is not manslaughter". Of course I'm paraphrasing, and although the next passage after that says that if it's daytime then it is indeed manslaughter, it still says that Christians have the right to defend ourself with lethal force if the situation is dire enough. The Founding Fathers obviously got a lot of inspiration from Christianity when they founded the United States of America, so I think they'd have been very supportive of the whole "Defend your castle" doctrine or whatever it's called. I wish we had such laws in Canada. Ian Thomson was attacked during the night I think, yet he still didn't kill those bastards, but even if he had I am glad that Jesus Christ himself would have told Ian that he had done the right thing in killing them.

>2017

You lost lol

you didn't even read the entire post lol

I dare say I have more respect for America than you've got for England. By the way, I'm not English or in/from the UK. We in Canada did go to war with the United States in the War of 1812 however. That could either be seen as a draw, since it basically ended with status quo to my knowledge, or Canada won because the US could not successfully "manifest destiny". Also, more Americans died in that war as well than either England or Canada. I'd make a note on the White House being burned to the ground however our capital of York was also torched, and is now Ottawa instead, so there's some give and take there too.

However like says, you should read the entire post. I do have a lot of respect for the United States, and hope to get a dual-citizenship someday once my writing career improves enough.

read moldbug

You're viewing history through a contemporary lens and distorting things to your own prejudice. The "founding fathers" weren't "all about gun ownership and Christianity" they were mostly Deists, under the influence of the enlightened French theory of their day, and the first ten amendments were just added on to the constitution as a token to the anti-Federalists who were scared of the centralizing they were doing and wanted additional checks. They were mostly conservatives definitely concerned about the debtors rebellions which were going on over the country after the revolution and the courts weren't necessarily working in the interests of the bond holder class, the constitution was all about centralizing power in the hands of the propertied elite.
The constitution actually enlarged the size of government and took power away from the states. The Articles of Confederation was for "small government".
Marx supported the Republican party in the mid 19th century FFS, the Republican party was for the industrial bourgeois which was still progressive in the 19th century and the Democrats support base was amongst small property holders/farmers
The Loyalists were not "left wing" in any sense, they were loyal to the king of England FFS. Canada was definitely much more economically liberal since it was under the guidance of the British free trade ideology whereas America has always been more protectionist for most of its existence. There did exist early controls on foreign ownership but they were largely gone by the 1840s and during the National Policy era American Foreign Direct Investment was welcomed because it was thougth it would boost growth instead the consequence was it moved all the profits back to America to be reinvested there and retarded economic development and resulted in the branch plantization of Canadian manufacturing and made sure we could never move beyond a staples economy.

good post

British conservatism is very different to American conservatism. Or it used to be anyway. Toryism was aligned with the monarchy, the landed gentry and the Church of England, things that have survived in England to this day. America after the revolution didn't have any of these things, so it didn't really have anything to conserve. Thus, American conservatism is essentially classical liberalism with a Christian zeal. Margaret Thatcher, often seen as the embodiment of conservatism, once said that she identified with "the liberalism of Mr Gladstone". She also completely threw away one of conservatism's greatest strengths, namely its hostility to ideology, when she said: "The other side have got an ideology . . . we must have one too". I can't speak for all my countrymen, but I'd hazard a guess that many people in England hold what A. J. P. Taylor called the “Tory sentiment”. This is his definition: "Toryism rests on doubt in human nature; it distrusts improvement, clings to traditional institutions, prefers the past to the future. It is a sentiment rather than a principle".

Also, I know that the far left tries to throw everyone they disagree with into the same basket but there are still considerable differences between classical liberalism and conservatism. When it comes to my own views, I consider myself a radical Tory, in the spirit of William Cobbett. Marx has a really good profile of him. marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1853/07/22a.htm

>Except all the Loyalists you murdered or drove off to Canada. Except all the sons of Britain you murdered in terrorist attacks. Except all the Indians. Except all the slaves. I guess they aren't people.
t. Proud Twitter user and Hillary voter

>Indians
>Slaves
Of course they're not people.

You left out the part where Canada lost and britain saved her

Let me guess. You're from Alberta, aren't you?