• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

On Government Gun Confiscations[W:137]

Lutherf said:
I'd suggest that after the unpleasantries were settled in favor of the Revolutionaries the loyalists who chose to remain in the new nation became US citizens with all the rights of other US citizens...including the right to keep and bear arms.
Click to expand...

But that's not what we;re talking about here is it.

Please go back and read the OP passage.
 
Carjosse said:
And they did not appreciate having rebels kill their soldiers and attempt to overthrow their government and way of life. You should not forget that the rebels were also quite fond of things tar and feathering.
Click to expand...

That's true: our rebels were terrorists and murderers and (at the time) far left seditious revolutionaries. But why would American "patriots" who wrote the second amendment engage in taking guns away from their adversaries, "disarming" law abiding citizens?
 
jet57 said:
So, one thing that we hear as a battle cry by the NRA and politically motivated gun enthusiasts, is that gun control is a slippery slope to the the government issuing confiscations etc, and that "Shall not Be Infringed" is a very hard core steel wall of the second amendment that is to be taken at full face value, no matter what any court or proposed legislation might suggest that does not necessarily agree with such an edict.

This sets up a very interesting question when we consider the motives and behavior of our early patriots:


Secret History of the American Revolution; 1941, Viking Press: New York; by Carl Van Doren PhD., Pulitzer prize winner

Chapter 1: Before Arnold: Shifting Loyalties

Page 12; 1st and 2nd paragraphs:

civil war


[…of] June 1775



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. These people were young, angry "revolutionaries" who used violence and disarmament to force their proscribed views onto otherwise peaceful society.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...




I don't give a ****.


No to new gun control, period.


RKBA predates America. Even in ancient civilizations the right of free men to bear arms was almost universal. The only problem was relatively few persons were "free".


Well we fixed that pretty much.
 
RetiredUSN said:
They were the enemy regardless.

They could have just as easily shot or hung them like their British overlords did quite often.
Click to expand...

So, they didn't see the "natural right" of self protection as a very important model by which to measure their own behavior? Their case for "American independence" wasn't good enough; they had to take people's guns away.
 
Goshin said:
I don't give a ****.


No to new gun control, period.


RKBA predates America. Even in ancient civilizations the right of free men to bear arms was almost universal. The only problem was relatively few persons were "free".


Well we fixed that pretty much.
Click to expand...

So, you believe in confiscation as a safety measure then, and it was a good idea for American patriots to disarm "law abiding citizens".

Interesting.
 
RenoCon said:
So who would know better than "the founding bodies" the power of confiscating arms from an opposing force? The new government added the Second Amendment to the Constitution to protect the inalienable rights of the new citizens from the new government that they had just created. This seems rather magnanimous to me. The victors, revolutionaries, defeated a much larger force, the British and loyalists. They understood that the new government was not as important as the citizens who created it. As long as citizens have the right to bear arms, its government cannot use "violence and disarmament to force their proscribed views onto an otherwise peaceful society." Would you prefer that society was defenseless against an oppressive government?
Click to expand...

They added the second amendment to keep people from doing what they did to serve their own purposes... You're editorializing on the upshot of the whole story, which doesn't matter one wit against what they did to get there. The NRA pro second amendment crowd is and was against any idea of gun confiscation, but they never discuss our own history of it. Why do you think WE did it?
 
RetiredUSN said:
They lived under the Crown without individual freedoms and no control over their government.
Click to expand...

They had a great deal of individual freedoms: that was the draw to get'em all there in the first place. The American born non noble industrialists had no control over the government, which affected their business...
 
jet57 said:
That's true: our rebels were terrorists and murderers and (at the time) far left seditious revolutionaries. But why would American "patriots" who wrote the second amendment engage in taking guns away from their adversaries, "disarming" law abiding citizens?
Click to expand...

They disarmed their opponents in order to defeat them. They understood the power of preventing the citizenry from bearing arms. They added the Second Amendment to assure that even the government (that they had just created!) would not have the power to oppress the inalienable rights provided in the Constitution. Would you prefer that a corrupt government have the ability to defeat a peaceful society?
 
Henrin said:
So? The government has already banned guns, so they already take peoples guns. Your argument was a fail.
Click to expand...

"Some" guns. You know, the ones you agreed were illegal.

BTW, whose illegal guns do they take upon death? Certainly not everyone's. If my dad dies, no one is taking his guns, legal or illegal, if he as them, except his surviving spouse and offspring.

Now, if you're talking about criminals shot dead by police...I would say it is good that they haul away their guns. You know, since they are criminals and all. :roll:
 
Carjosse said:
The rebels were the enemy trying to overthrow the government over not wanting to pay perfectly reasonable taxes.
Click to expand...

Lol, to a lib, all taxes are "perfectly reasonable". Nothing like rewriting history.
 
calamity said:
"Some" guns. You know, the ones you agreed were illegal.

BTW, whose illegal guns do they take upon death? Certainly not everyone's. If my dad dies, no one is taking his guns, legal or illegal, if he as them, except his surviving spouse and offspring.

Now, if you're talking about criminals shot dead by police...I would say it is good that they haul away their guns. You know, since they are criminals and all. :roll:
Click to expand...

You will want to make sure the government doesn't find out about you getting his guns when he dies. Otherwise, they will come after those guns and take them.
 
Henrin said:
You will want to make sure the government doesn't find out about you getting his guns when he dies. Otherwise, they will come after those guns and take them.
Click to expand...

I can't possibly imagine why, or how they'd even be involved with what sits in his house or various storage units.
 
jet57 said:
But that's not what we;re talking about here is it.

Please go back and read the OP passage.
Click to expand...

The Battles of Lexington and Concord, widely considered to be the first engagements of the Revolutionary War, occurred in April of 1775, well before the Declaration of Independence was presented. Those battles were prompted, as I'm sure you're aware, by British troops seeking to confiscate the supplies and arms of local militia.

Did the rebels seek to dissuade loyalists from thwarting their rebellion? Heck yes! However, as I noted, once hostilities had ceased those loyalists who chose to stay in the new nation became citizens with full rights.

I think that even you would agree that in times of war the rights of the local populace are a secondary or tertiary concern to the goal of winning. The telling factor regarding rights is what happens when a victor is determined. In the case of the US the victor decided that Liberty was the proper outcome. That may well not have been the case if Britain had prevailed.
 
jet57 said:
They added the second amendment to keep people from doing what they did to serve their own purposes... You're editorializing on the upshot of the whole story, which doesn't matter one wit against what they did to get there. The NRA pro second amendment crowd is and was against any idea of gun confiscation, but they never discuss our own history of it. Why do you think WE did it?
Click to expand...

We did it to win the revolution and form an autonomous government. That goal was accomplished. The Second Amendment was added to help protect law abiding peaceful citizens from that government should it become oppressive. Our founders were not serving "their own purposes", they were taking precautions to assure that American citizens could defend themselves against an oppressive government.

The NRA, of course, came much later. They support the Constitution of the United States, and specifically the Second Amendment as a tool to effect that goal. If you are a citizen of the U.S. you are a part of the "second amendment crowd" whether you like it or not. Where would you be if the revolutionaries decided they wanted to just keep the peace and put down their guns? You should be thanking the NRA for defending the Second Amendment and protecting your inalienable rights. I can send you a link if you would like to join.
 
countryboy said:
Lol, to a lib, all taxes are "perfectly reasonable". Nothing like rewriting history.
Click to expand...

I think it was perfectly reasonable for the colonists who were the primary beneficiaries of the Seven-Years War to help pay for it. The tea tax was the only one actually enforced by the Crown.
 
Carjosse said:
I think it was perfectly reasonable for the colonists who were the primary beneficiaries of the Seven-Years War to help pay for it. The tea tax was the only one actually enforced by the Crown.
Click to expand...

As if that was the only reason for the revolutionary war. :roll:

Just curious, can you name a single tax you find unreasonable?
 
calamity said:
No one is coming for anyone's guns.
Click to expand...

you obviously are ignorant of california where it is a criminal violation to merely continue to own a normal sized magazine that other citizens in other states can buy through the mail
 
RenoCon said:
They disarmed their opponents in order to defeat them. They understood the power of preventing the citizenry from bearing arms. They added the Second Amendment to assure that even the government (that they had just created!) would not have the power to oppress the inalienable rights provided in the Constitution. Would you prefer that a corrupt government have the ability to defeat a peaceful society?
Click to expand...

Jet's mad he cannot own guns that many us in free states can. its as simple as that
 
TurtleDude said:
you obviously are ignorant of california where it is a criminal violation to merely continue to own a normal sized magazine that other citizens in other states can buy through the mail
Click to expand...

Good reason not to live in California.
 
Carjosse said:
And promptly kepyt enslaving blacks for the next 100 years... Clearly you have never heard of black loyalists, many which came to Canada and were given land.

Stop trying to make the rebel Americans out as prefect people just trying to fight for freedom and painting the British as devils. Clearly the romancification of the revolutionary war is alive and well.
Click to expand...

winners tend to write the dominant account of history
 
calamity said:
Good reason not to live in California.
Click to expand...

good reason to contain that sickness to that and a few other states. I hope the people of california who are told they are criminals for merely owning a magazine they may have owned for decades resist and do everything possible to stop those who push that crap onto them. If cops are given such magazines, politicians who call other civilians criminals for owning them ought to be tried for treason and jailed or at least stripped of any power and any benefits from once having office
 
TurtleDude said:
good reason to contain that sickness to that and a few other states. I hope the people of california who are told they are criminals for merely owning a magazine they may have owned for decades resist and do everything possible to stop those who push that crap onto them. If cops are given such magazines, politicians who call other civilians criminals for owning them ought to be tried for treason and jailed or at least stripped of any power and any benefits from once having office
Click to expand...

I'd break the law and take it up the jurisprudence food chain. It's not constitutional.
 
calamity said:
I'd break the law and take it up the jurisprudence food chain. It's not constitutional.
Click to expand...


I have no use for any politician who says someone should be a criminal for owning something they have owned for years and which cops are issued and citizens in most states can buy through the mail. I hope anyone arrested does every thing possible to screw up that government out there-lawsuits, refusal to comply etc. If I was a juror I'd find no criminal activity with anyone charged with such a law or who refuses to comply
 
RenoCon said:
They disarmed their opponents in order to defeat them. They understood the power of preventing the citizenry from bearing arms. They added the Second Amendment to assure that even the government (that they had just created!) would not have the power to oppress the inalienable rights provided in the Constitution. Would you prefer that a corrupt government have the ability to defeat a peaceful society?
Click to expand...

It's funny how nobody sees the staggering irony in all of this. They didn't know the power of a citizenry bearing arms. They didn't think about that. They prevented "militias" from forming against them is what they did. And they didn't think anything of the sovereign and natural right of protecting home and property. None of that came about until the NRA radical stuck their nose in it.
 
countryboy said:
Lol, to a lib, all taxes are "perfectly reasonable". Nothing like rewriting history.
Click to expand...

You have no idea what you're talking about.

How'z about you reply to the OP; I've noticed that the radical gun crowd is running from it like they've seen snake.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom