Total Posts:12|Showing Posts:1-12
Jump to topic:

Blood Drawn by Lash and Sword (but not gun??)

wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2013 12:57:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I'm watching the inaugural address on CNN.com right now. Something struck me funny:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...

"Through blood drawn by lash and blood drawn by sword, we learned that no union founded on the principles of liberty and equality could survive half-slave and half-free. We made ourselves anew, and vowed to move forward together."

This is obviously a reference to the Civil War, and not some Roman gladiatorial event. Obama specifically left out the word "gun" in how blood was drawn, even though the main weapon used in the Civil War was the rifle.

What are your thoughts about this conscious omission?
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
CarefulNow
Posts: 780
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2013 1:45:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/21/2013 12:57:02 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
What are your thoughts about this conscious omission?

Guns were also the primary enforcer of American slavery. But the lash is what is symbolic of slavery, as the sword is symbolic of war. "Sword" is more poetic than "gun", anyway, and these inaugurations are always melodramatic.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2013 1:55:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/21/2013 1:45:30 PM, CarefulNow wrote:
At 1/21/2013 12:57:02 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
What are your thoughts about this conscious omission?

Guns were also the primary enforcer of American slavery. But the lash is what is symbolic of slavery, as the sword is symbolic of war. "Sword" is more poetic than "gun", anyway, and these inaugurations are always melodramatic.

Good point. BUT WAIT, THERE'S MORE:

"For the American people can no more meet the demands of today"s world by acting alone than American soldiers could have met the forces of fascism or communism with muskets and militias."

This is a more direct attack against the relevancy of the 2nd amendment. Your thoughts?
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
CarefulNow
Posts: 780
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2013 3:42:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/21/2013 1:55:32 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
This is a more direct attack against the relevancy of the 2nd amendment. Your thoughts?

Well, the 2nd Ammendment's certainly lost its purpose, but it's always been undemocratic and therefore condemnable. As for whether Obama was referring to the 2nd Ammendment, I couldn't say based on that one sentence.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2013 3:50:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/21/2013 3:42:44 PM, CarefulNow wrote:
At 1/21/2013 1:55:32 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
This is a more direct attack against the relevancy of the 2nd amendment. Your thoughts?

Well, the 2nd Ammendment's certainly lost its purpose, but it's always been undemocratic and therefore condemnable. As for whether Obama was referring to the 2nd Ammendment, I couldn't say based on that one sentence.

We don't have it to protect property. It was designed to protect against property, in addition to having its explicitly stated goal.

Without the 2nd, Virginia and it's 50% free, 50% slave population doesn't ratify the constitution, and the United States remain ununited.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2013 5:17:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/21/2013 3:42:44 PM, CarefulNow wrote:
At 1/21/2013 1:55:32 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
This is a more direct attack against the relevancy of the 2nd amendment. Your thoughts?

Well, the 2nd Ammendment's certainly lost its purpose, but it's always been undemocratic and therefore condemnable. As for whether Obama was referring to the 2nd Ammendment, I couldn't say based on that one sentence.

So what would you think he is referring to, then?
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2013 5:19:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/21/2013 3:50:12 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 1/21/2013 3:42:44 PM, CarefulNow wrote:
At 1/21/2013 1:55:32 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
This is a more direct attack against the relevancy of the 2nd amendment. Your thoughts?

Well, the 2nd Ammendment's certainly lost its purpose, but it's always been undemocratic and therefore condemnable. As for whether Obama was referring to the 2nd Ammendment, I couldn't say based on that one sentence.

We don't have it to protect property. It was designed to protect against property, in addition to having its explicitly stated goal.

Without the 2nd, Virginia and it's 50% free, 50% slave population doesn't ratify the constitution, and the United States remain ununited.

Interesting. So you're saying that the 2nd amendment was a pro-slavery clause inserted into the Constitution. Wow...
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
CarefulNow
Posts: 780
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2013 6:20:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/21/2013 5:17:37 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/21/2013 3:42:44 PM, CarefulNow wrote:
At 1/21/2013 1:55:32 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
This is a more direct attack against the relevancy of the 2nd amendment. Your thoughts?

Well, the 2nd Ammendment's certainly lost its purpose, but it's always been undemocratic and therefore condemnable. As for whether Obama was referring to the 2nd Ammendment, I couldn't say based on that one sentence.

So what would you think he is referring to, then?

He was referencing the Revolutionary War. It's just that the current gun control debate may have inspired him to do so or to use the terms he did.
CarefulNow
Posts: 780
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2013 6:22:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/21/2013 5:19:24 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
Interesting. So you're saying that the 2nd amendment was a pro-slavery clause inserted into the Constitution. Wow...

Yeah, that would be as crazy as a clause that defined a black person as three-fifths of one.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2013 7:00:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/21/2013 5:19:24 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/21/2013 3:50:12 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 1/21/2013 3:42:44 PM, CarefulNow wrote:
At 1/21/2013 1:55:32 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
This is a more direct attack against the relevancy of the 2nd amendment. Your thoughts?

Well, the 2nd Ammendment's certainly lost its purpose, but it's always been undemocratic and therefore condemnable. As for whether Obama was referring to the 2nd Ammendment, I couldn't say based on that one sentence.

We don't have it to protect property. It was designed to protect against property, in addition to having its explicitly stated goal.

Without the 2nd, Virginia and it's 50% free, 50% slave population doesn't ratify the constitution, and the United States remain ununited.


Interesting. So you're saying that the 2nd amendment was a pro-slavery clause inserted into the Constitution. Wow...

Madison, despite, like Franklin (especially like Franklin) and Jefferson (yeah, I know), wanting to abolish slavery with the introduction of (mostly) his new constitution, he was more concerned with creating a federal government to unify the states, and he needed 9 of the original states to ratify the necessary document in order to fulfill this dream.

Virginia was the fence sitter, and Virginia had a metric f*ck ton of nervous white folk who were terrified of a slave rebellion.

The best defense against that rebellion was the (not so) trusty musket.

The second amendment may have been added anyway, but it was definitely not taken out because its removal meant losing Virginia and the idea of these United States.

From the Virginia State Constitution, written June 12, 1776,
11 years before the Bill of Rights would have possibly even been thought of...

13. That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.


(if only Madison would have had the foresight to copy the damn thing completely instead of cleverly trying to paraphrase it, we wouldn't have the tyrannical death force which we call the US Army, but whatever...obviously, we do)
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
TheElderScroll
Posts: 643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2013 7:28:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/21/2013 12:57:02 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
I'm watching the inaugural address on CNN.com right now. Something struck me funny:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...

"Through blood drawn by lash and blood drawn by sword, we learned that no union founded on the principles of liberty and equality could survive half-slave and half-free. We made ourselves anew, and vowed to move forward together."

This is obviously a reference to the Civil War, and not some Roman gladiatorial event. Obama specifically left out the word "gun" in how blood was drawn, even though the main weapon used in the Civil War was the rifle.

What are your thoughts about this conscious omission?

"Sword" would conjure more bloody scenes. I like the literal references.

Although irrelevant, Roman Empire did thrive under "liberty and equality (overall) could survive half-slave and half-free (to citizens)"... From the rise of Augustus to the rise of Commondus, there were about 200 hundred years...
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2013 11:28:18 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Fascinating discussion. Thanks!
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?