- Joined
- Oct 12, 2005
- Messages
- 281,619
- Reaction score
- 100,389
- Location
- Ohio
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
Divert - deflect - avoid, hijack; that's all the right can do.
Ad-hom, deflection, denial of fact.
Ad-hom, deflection, denial of fact.
The confiscation of weapons at that period of time were from those that posed a threat to the viability of a new nation. So what point specifically are you trying to make? What would have occured had they not?
After the Revolution perse is off topic. Impressment, 1812 has nothing to do with the OP.
The point has always been very simple
juxtaposed to today's pro gun rhetoric, the actual ideology of American patriots was way off the scale, and gun confiscations prove that. The NRA and other right-wing groups love to laud the American patriots and their struggle for liberty and what some refer to as natural rights, as does Turtledue, but those natural rights were not so natural and the point is, these facts fly in the face of all of the pro gun memes that "look to the founders in veneration". We learn that such was certainly not the case.
Very easy to under stand thesis and all there's been is deflection and diversion form the gun people which only iterates my point that the right does not like to face history when it come to their agenda.
Well, there was no new nation; it was an armed insurrection. So it was okay to take away guns that caused a threat.
Interesting.
Here's the point- post 171:
The point has always been very simple: juxtaposed to today's pro gun rhetoric, the actual ideology of American patriots was way off the scale, and gun confiscations prove that. The NRA and other right-wing groups love to laud the American patriots and their struggle for liberty and what some refer to as natural rights, as does Turtledue, but those natural rights were not so natural and the point is, these facts fly in the face of all of the pro gun memes that "look to the founders in veneration". We learn that such was certainly not the case.
Very easy to understand thesis and all there's been is deflection and diversion form the gun people which only iterates my point that the right does not like to face history when it come to their agenda.
After the Revolution perse is off topic. Impressment, 1812 has nothing to do with the OP.
The point has always been very simple: juxtaposed to today's pro gun rhetoric, the actual ideology of American patriots was way off the scale, and gun confiscations prove that. The NRA and other right-wing groups love to laud the American patriots and their struggle for liberty and what some refer to as natural rights, as does Turtledue, but those natural rights were not so natural and the point is, these facts fly in the face of all of the pro gun memes that "look to the founders in veneration". We learn that such was certainly not the case.
Very easy to under stand thesis and all there's been is deflection and diversion form the gun people which only iterates my point that the right does not like to face history when it come to their agenda.
Yes. It is. Try to undermine the fact that the right was granted to individuals because the founders recognized the disarming of individuals as something that was done to keep them from protecting themselves from tyranny. You don't get to decide what is "off topic." You have posed a question. "Thoughts." And the idea of impressment and the creation of the articles and then the constitution are all important to the discussion of the 2nd. Period. These ideas were all happening at the time. They were very real and considerations the founders had.
But the point is...your trying to bring something up as a weak attempt to undermine anti gun control advocates. And it is pointless. Especially because you have to attempt to limit the discussion to ignore major factors in the creation OF the second. In fact...one could argue that those who saw the disarming of individuals by either side RECOGNIZED they issue and decided the 2nd should be written.
:
So basically...your thesis is the only correct point in the thread because you say it is and nobody is allowed to bring anything up unless you deem it is on topic and it is off topic if it doesn't agree with your point.
Reminds of that kid in big daddy "I win."
So basically your point is that we should confiscate all firearms because some people did it 200 years ago. Got it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
And how is that relevant to today? How does it support your view that guns can be confiscated from those who present no danger to themselves, others or the country? States at that time had similar language to the 2nd. They seemed to recognize those inalienable rights prior to the BoR even if you don't recognize it.
It's precisely relevant to today with respect to NRA etc rhetoric on "the founders" and what really went on. And where have I presented a view that guns can be confiscated? I dare you to find that. What came out in 1789 is separate issue from what was going on to get there. And let's not forget that colonial gun control laws were written after the second amendment was passed, so actually your argument is safer with respect to the topic only.
So do you believe the government should not be permitted to confiscate firearms from individuals who present no danger to themselves, others or the country?
So now you're going waaay off topic and back to an old thread because you can't hack the topic of this thread.
:2wave:
No one is coming for anyone's guns.
So now you're going waaay off topic and back to an old thread because you can't hack the topic of this thread.
:2wave:
With a well-armed public a Totalitarian Dictatorship is impossible to establish. Without a Totalitarian Dictatorship a Holocaust or similar situation is impossible to achieve.
So now you're going waaay off topic and back to an old thread because you can't hack the topic of this thread.
:2wave:
So, what we learn is that confiscation was a tool of the founding bodies that created the second amendment in order to control their communities and the people who lived within and without them.
I’ve certainly never attempted to undermine the right to keep and bear and this thread is yet another example and I defy you to show where I have. The early patriots were confiscating guns (for about the 5th time now) to keep from getting shot and to keep the Tories from forming other militias. The early patriots were protecting themselves by taking guns away from people who were and could continue to make life dangerous for them – full stop. Once again – “impressment” was not an issue at the time so such references are off topic, and I do get to decide what I think is off topic and respond to such stuff in kind.
Now as for any “attempt”, anti-gun control people undermine themselves with ridiculous rhetoric and this thread is another example of it. “History” often tells truths that people don’t want to hear, and ani-gun control people are just going to have to come to terms with these facts and rest their necks on the rhetoric and come into the realization that gun control and the history of it in this country are not what they think is: the phrase is –”man up”. People today want certain guns taken off the markets for the very same reason that patriots confiscated them: to keep themselves safe!
All you guys have done here, rather than facing facts and taking time to learn something is beat around the bush and avoid and deflect. I didn’t post my opinion btw, I posted and historical writing on the subject of the American Revolution and it is a correct one.
And when did I ever say confiscate all guns? I’ll defy you yet again to show where I’ve even hinted at that!
which is why the bannerrhoid movement is mainly made up of those who want a collectivist government that ignores the jurisdiction of the several states or the rights of the people as individuals.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?