On Government Gun Confiscations[W:137]

[Crimefree]

Huh? Are you lump summing?

Google is your friend if you do not know.

Democide is a term revived and redefined by the political scientist R. J. Rummel (1932–2014) as "the murder of any person or people by their government, including genocide, politicide and mass murder". For example, government-sponsored killings for political reasons would be .... He estimates the death-toll for each country over the course of a century, ...

262 million. Kinda puts your claim out the door because that is 6 times more than killed in all the wars for the same period. Trust government is a serious mistake and that is what every government seeks to do. Control citizens.

 

[grip]

Google is your friend if you do not know.

Democide is a term revived and redefined by the political scientist R. J. Rummel (1932–2014) as "the murder of any person or people by their government, including genocide, politicide and mass murder". For example, government-sponsored killings for political reasons would be .... He estimates the death-toll for each country over the course of a century, ...

262 million. Kinda puts your claim out the door because that is 6 times more than killed in all the wars for the same period. Trust government is a serious mistake and that is what every government seeks to do. Control citizens.

Google also makes you dumb by not really learning anything but temporal info or misleading factoids.

 

[Crimefree]

Google also makes you dumb by not really learning anything but temporal info or misleading factoids.

Google has a correction system and somebody as clever as you should be fixing those errors. So give an error of what I posted and tell me why this crap you posted is important.

Diatribe such a nice word.

 

[Rucker61]

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?

It's not surprising what Englishmen would do to their fellow subjects, or what revolutionaries will do to their enemies. In 1780 the English army killed 285 Londoners and arrested 20 or 30 more for later execution. By the early 19th century the English had more troops violently suppressing their own people than theyou had fighting Napoleon in the Peninsula Campaign.

 

[grip]

Google has a correction system and somebody as clever as you should be fixing those errors. So give an error of what I posted and tell me why this crap you posted is important.

Diatribe such a nice word.

262 million dead sounds smart? You speaketh the crap, sir.

 

[jet57]

You were the one that used the term "military grade" so it is up to you to let everyone else know what that means in order to honestly discuss it. If you have a rational definition, why are you dodging?

I don't remember that phrase in this thread.

 

[jet57]

It's not surprising what Englishmen would do to their fellow subjects, or what revolutionaries will do to their enemies. In 1780 the English army killed 285 Londoners and arrested 20 or 30 more for later execution. By the early 19th century the English had more troops violently suppressing their own people than theyou had fighting Napoleon in the Peninsula Campaign.

And this has what to do with the OP?

 

[Rucker61]

And this has what to do with the OP?

"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."

Before July 1776, it was simply a disagreement between two sets of Englishmen. After that, anyone who supported the Crown was an enemy.

 

[blackjack50]

"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."

Before July 1776, it was simply a disagreement between two sets of Englishmen. After that, anyone who supported the Crown was an enemy.

They were more than that. They were an active threat to the sovereignty of the United States. Impressment? The war of 1812?

Besides all that...the right didn't exist till 1789.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jet57]

"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."

Before July 1776, it was simply a disagreement between two sets of Englishmen. After that, anyone who supported the Crown was an enemy.

Your one line really doesn't say anything at all. "American patriots" confiscated guns and since the NRA et al use "The American Patriots" as that standard boundary of right by which Freedom and Liberty and "The Second Amendment" are measured by today's standards, then what the "American Patriots" were actually thinking and doing is something that gun rights advocates should be talking about, as it flies in the face of what the prescribed perception is with respect to our struggle for a new nation and what the reality really was.

 

[jet57]

It's not surprising what Englishmen would do to their fellow subjects, or what revolutionaries will do to their enemies. In 1780 the English army killed 285 Londoners and arrested 20 or 30 more for later execution. By the early 19th century the English had more troops violently suppressing their own people than theyou had fighting Napoleon in the Peninsula Campaign.

We're not discussing Englishmen: we're discussing the behavior of Americans trying to win a new government and the fact that gun confiscation was a tactic used.

 

[jet57]

They were more than that. They were an active threat to the sovereignty of the United States. Impressment? The war of 1812?

Besides all that...the right didn't exist till 1789.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Off topic.

There was no United States when American patriots were confiscating guns and denying liberty and property.

 

[Rucker61]

We're not discussing Englishmen: we're discussing the behavior of Americans trying to win a new government and the fact that gun confiscation was a tactic used.

Those colonialists were indeed Englishmen and English subjects up until July 4, 1776.

 

[TurtleDude]

We're not discussing Englishmen: we're discussing the behavior of Americans trying to win a new government and the fact that gun confiscation was a tactic used.

Jes argument tries to confuse tactics used against an enemy as a standard the same leaders would impose on their own citizens Its a worthless argument.

 

[TurtleDude]

Off topic.

There was no United States when American patriots were confiscating guns and denying liberty and property.

as to the enemy. Your attempts to try to undermine the second amendment (which was intended to apply to free AMERICAN citizens) based on actions that the PATRIOTS directed to the ENEMY is really silly

 

[jet57]

Those colonialists were indeed Englishmen and English subjects up until July 4, 1776.

A bunch of those Englishmen were American patriots.

 

[TurtleDude]

A bunch of those Englishmen were American patriots.

what's your point-if any jet? are you trying to pretend that the founders didn't really believe that American Citizens in the United States of America didn't have a natural right to be armed because those same founders tried to disarm their ENEMIES in the Revolutionary war?

 

[blackjack50]

Off topic.

There was no United States when American patriots were confiscating guns and denying liberty and property.

It is ON TOPIC. You asked specifically for "thoughts" in the OP. You don't like it? Don't ask it. The fact is...the second didn't exist when these people started disarming others. In fact...those revolutionaries had an entirely different set of governing documents that they put into place and lasted revised and replaced. Perhaps they learned some things in the 6-8 years of writing the 2 different documents. You know the articles of confederation came before the constitution correct?

But anyway. You are right. There was no United States government. So what is your point? We should be allowed to violate rights now because they violated rights then...before the rights were recognized by a federal constitution?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TurtleDude]

It is ON TOPIC. You asked specifically for "thoughts" in the OP. You don't like it? Don't ask it. The fact is...the second didn't exist when these people started disarming others. In fact...those revolutionaries had an entirely different set of governing documents that they put into place and lasted revised and replaced. Perhaps they learned some things in the 6-8 years of writing the 2 different documents. You know the articles of confederation came before the constitution correct?

But anyway. You are right. There was no United States government. So what is your point? We should be allowed to violate rights now because they violated rights then...before the rights were recognized by a federal constitution?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

the crap we see from gun banners who try to undermine the second amendment

we get those who claim that the second amendment doesn't protect us because SOME OF the founders didn't see those natural rights that serve as the BASIS of the Bill of rights, applying to slaves or Indians. that was a real winner-because the founders didn't think Natural rights applied to slaves, that in turn meant that the OWN FOUNDERS really didn't want for themselves THE RIGHTS THEY SET FORTH IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS

then we have JET/s nonsense that the second amendment writers didn't really believe what they wrote because SOME OF THEM wanted to disarm those they were fighting

this is the sort of silly nonsense you get from those who do understand that the second amendment prevents bannerrhoid nonsense and want to try to work around it rather than being HONEST

 

[Crimefree]

what's your point-if any jet? are you trying to pretend that the founders didn't really believe that American Citizens in the United States of America didn't have a natural right to be armed because those same founders tried to disarm their ENEMIES in the Revolutionary war?

You are not supposed to bring up points like that and make Jets claims look like crap. The fact that most States constitutions already had a similar clause probably escapes him as well.

 

[jet57]

It is ON TOPIC. You asked specifically for "thoughts" in the OP. You don't like it? Don't ask it. The fact is...the second didn't exist when these people started disarming others. In fact...those revolutionaries had an entirely different set of governing documents that they put into place and lasted revised and replaced. Perhaps they learned some things in the 6-8 years of writing the 2 different documents. You know the articles of confederation came before the constitution correct?

But anyway. You are right. There was no United States government. So what is your point? We should be allowed to violate rights now because they violated rights then...before the rights were recognized by a federal constitution?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

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.

 

[TurtleDude]

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.

other than trying to justify why your silly state bans stuff, can you find a single document from ANY founder that even remotely suggests that the founders intended the federal government to have any power to ban privately owned firearms?

My guess is

1) you won't attempt to answer this

2) if you respond it will evade what I asked and will obfuscate the fact that the founders NEVER EVER even hinted that the federal government had such power

 

[jet57]

The right is once again - waaaay off topic, diversionary and inflammatory because they don't want to face actual American history on the subject of guns.

 

[TurtleDude]

The right is once again - waaaay off topic, diversionary and inflammatory because they don't want to face actual American history on the subject of guns.

I figured Jet couldn't answer. the history of the Republic is that the federal government was never intended to have any ability to restrict the right of citizens as to what firearms they owned. All this dishonest nonsense about Tories being disarmed has no relevance to this point and is nothing more than a pathetic attempt to justify bannerrhoid laws that violate the second, ninth, and tenth amendments as well as almost every state constitution

 

[jet57]

Divert - deflect - avoid, hijack; that's all the right can do.