On Government Gun Confiscations[W:137]

[jet57]

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

No loyalist, any more than any British commander or his agent, saw anything wrong in trying to win the deserters back. They could not, strictly speaking, be traitors of a state which had no constitutional right to exist, and which therefore did not exist. To coax or urge or bribe them to come over was only an effort to restore them to lawful duty.

The patriots had another point of view. They believed that they has set up a legitimate government founded on natural human rights. Before July 1776 revolutionary committees had nagged and bullied Tories, and wherever possible disarmed them. Mobs had grossly abused and humiliated them. After the Declaration the new states passed laws against the loyalists and traitors.

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?

 

[RetiredUSN]

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

No loyalist, any more than any British commander or his agent, saw anything wrong in trying to win the deserters back. They could not, strictly speaking, be traitors of a state which had no constitutional right to exist, and which therefore did not exist. To coax or urge or bribe them to come over was only an effort to restore them to lawful duty.

The patriots had another point of view. They believed that they has set up a legitimate government founded on natural human rights. Before July 1776 revolutionary committees had nagged and bullied Tories, and wherever possible disarmed them. Mobs had grossly and abused and humiliated them. After the Declaration the new states passed laws against the loyalists and traitors.[/i]

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?

Considering that many of the loyalists often "snitched" on their neighbors, what would you have done?

 

[jet57]

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



Considering that many of the loyalists often "snitched" on their neighbors, what would you have done?

What I would have done is not the question. The question is - what do you think of what they did? What do you think of early patriotic real Americans confiscating the guns from people who did not share their ideological perspective? "Snitching" doesn't mean anything; you don't need a gun to be a snitch.

 

[RetiredUSN]

What I would have done is not the question. The question is - what do you think of what they did? What do you think of early patriotic real Americans confiscating the guns from people who did not share their ideological perspective? "Snitching" doesn't mean anything; you don't need a gun to be a snitch.

It wasn't about "just taking" guns because of a "ideological perspective".

The snitches caused many a man to die on a prison ship, or just hung outright

They were as much a enemy as the Royal army, and you would share this of you were being the least bit honest.

 

[Lutherf]

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?

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.

 

[Carjosse]

It wasn't about "just taking" guns because of a "ideological perspective".

The snitches caused many a man to die on a prison ship, or just hung outright

They were as much a enemy as the Royal army, and you would share this of you were being the least bit honest.

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.

 

[RetiredUSN]

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.

They were the enemy regardless.

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

 

[Carjosse]

They were the enemy regardless.

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

The rebels were the enemy trying to overthrow the government over not wanting to pay perfectly reasonable taxes.

 

[RetiredUSN]

The rebels were the enemy trying to overthrow the government over not wanting to pay perfectly reasonable taxes.

They lived under the Crown without individual freedoms and no control over their government.

 

[Carjosse]

They lived under the Crown without individual freedoms and no control over their government.

They lived under the crown with the same rights as other British subjects which included many rights and freedoms.

 

[calamity]

No one is coming for anyone's guns.

 

[RetiredUSN]

They lived under the crown with the same rights as other British subjects which included many rights and freedoms.

No they didn't. Try reading up

Not all colonists were from Britain (50%)............... and they held zero loyalty to the Crown.

 

[Carjosse]

No they didn't. Try reading up

Not all colonists were from Britain (50%)............... and they held zero loyalty to the Crown.

Really because the sources I found said a large majority (85%) were from Britain.

I am just trying to point out you can spin it either way.

 

[RetiredUSN]

Really because the sources I found said a large majority (85%) were from Britain.

1770.................. 50%

 

[Henrin]

No one is coming for anyone's guns.

What do you think the government does when someone dies and they have illegal guns? Hint: They take them.

What happens when someone gets caught with an illegal gun? Hint: They take the gun.

 

[Carjosse]

1770.................. 50%

View attachment 67214475

85% of the white population was British, and the African/Slave population largely supported the British during the war. To them the British were freedom.

 

[RetiredUSN]

85% of the white population was British, and the African/Slave population largely supported the British during the war. To them the British were freedom.

No.....the Irish and Scots detested the crown.... so did the German, Dutch, French, and others.

No.... not all blacks were slaves, and a large number died fighting the British from the northern half.

The crown still used slaves at the time either directly or through proxy throughout all their colonies, and would have continued allowing white men to own slaves.

 

[Carjosse]

No.....the Irish and Scots detested the crown.... so did the German, Dutch, French, and others.

No.... not all blacks were slaves, and a large number died fighting the British from the northern half.

The crown still used slaves at the time either directly or through proxy throughout all their colonies, and would have continued allowing white men to own slaves.

Abolitionist sentiment was building in Britain and freeing slaves who deserted the rebel standard gave the British a large number of fanatical fighters willing to fight to the death to defend their new found freedom both in the revolutionary war and in 1812.

 

[RetiredUSN]

Abolitionist sentiment was building in Britain and freeing slaves who deserted the rebel standard gave the British a large number of fanatical fighters willing to fight to the death to defend their new found freedom both in the revolutionary war and in 1812.

Right.......lol

25% of the Northern Army was made up of black men.

The British loved black men who served on ships and fought in the ranks, but did zero for them as far as individual rights go. They were nothing more than fodder to the British and were tossed aside after. They were just as nasty to them as the southern slaves owners.

 

[calamity]

What do you think the government does when someone dies and they have illegal guns? Hint: They take them.

What happens when someone gets caught with an illegal gun? Hint: They take the gun.

What's the common denominator in those two statements? Hint: "illegal."

 

[Carjosse]

Right.......lol

25% of the Northern Army was made up of black men.

The British loved black men who served on ships and fought in the ranks, but did zero for them as far as individual rights go. They were nothing more than fodder to the British and were tossed aside after. They were just as nasty to them as the southern slaves owners.

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.

 

[RetiredUSN]

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.

Where did I say the colonists were perfect people?

Go back and read carefully.....and get back to me.

Britain enslaved entire countries for another 170 years after the war for independence......so WTF are you rambling on about?

 

[RenoCon]

...


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?

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?

 

[Henrin]

What's the common denominator in those two statements? Hint: "illegal."

So? The government has already banned guns, so they already take peoples guns. Your argument was a fail.

 

[jet57]

It wasn't about "just taking" guns because of a "ideological perspective".

The snitches caused many a man to die on a prison ship, or just hung outright

They were as much a enemy as the Royal army, and you would share this of you were being the least bit honest.

But you're forgetting two very important things: guns have nothing to do with "snitching", which I've already told you; and secondly "Snitching" is word of mouth and no reason to take someone's guns away. You're going to have to try a new tack man, the one you're one doesn't apply.