Political stuff

[Chobham]

Now I'll have those nightmares of having missed a last final and never really graduating.


Thanks for that.
__________________________________________
Democrat born. Democrat bred. Libertarian led (by Democrats).

What are friends for?

 

[Sh1ne0n67]

Tormenting each other.

That's how we turn boys to men...



__________________________________________
Democrat born. Democrat bred. Libertarian led (by Democrats).

 

[LittleDixie]

The 2nd amendment was written by people who knew that disarmament is a precursor to tyranny and servitude. A people will remain respected by their government so long as the government knows that they have the ultimate veto of oppression.

People with weapons can defend themselves. People with weapons can harass occupying armies. People with weapons are harder to control and impossible to enslave.

Hunting, target shooting and self defense are all good reasons to have guns, but the best reason is to maintain a red line against tyrants, despots and dictators.

 

[oggbashan]

But the British 'tyrants' allowed citizens of the 13 colonies to own and use guns.

 

[Sh1ne0n67]

They did not "allow" it.
It was a necessity.

Some of the natives were a bit, "hostile."
__________________________________________
Democrat born. Democrat bred. Libertarian led (by Democrats).

 

[oggbashan]

They did ALLOW it. It was a right established in 1666.

 

[HisArpy]

They did ALLOW it. It was a right established in 1666.

A "right" is not a "privilege."

 

[Chobham]

They did ALLOW it. It was a right established in 1666.

In 1768 King George ordered that all imported firearms in the hands of the colonists be confiscated. What the Crown giveth, the Crown can taketh away. The second amendment makes sure that NO government will ever be able to do so again.

 

[HisArpy]

The 2nd amendment was written by people who knew that disarmament is a precursor to tyranny and servitude. A people will remain respected by their government so long as the government knows that they have the ultimate veto of oppression.

People with weapons can defend themselves. People with weapons can harass occupying armies. People with weapons are harder to control and impossible to enslave.

Hunting, target shooting and self defense are all good reasons to have guns, but the best reason is to maintain a red line against tyrants, despots and dictators.

In our realtime timelines right now, the people of Ukraine are resisting the efforts of Russia to subdue them. That would not be possible without arms being borne by the people. An independent Ukraine wouldn't exist without the willingness of the people of Ukraine to resist Russia's violent attempts to seize them and their country. And if you believe this is a one-off situation, then look at Afghanistan which has fought off 2 world powers because the people were armed and used those arms against those who would seize their lives and lands.

Our founders knew that this could occur once the British decided that the colonists were slaves to British whims. So they included the 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights as a guarantee that we would be able to stave off any attempt, by any government including our own, to control the people and this nation by force.

One need only look at Ukraine to understand how futile it is to believe that any country is sovereign without a means to defend itself and that national (and personal) defense lies in the hands of the people, not the military or the government.

 

[AlexBailey]

​

Ukrainian Gun Control Laws​

Regulation of private firearms in Ukraine is categorised as permissive. Rifles and shotguns are allowed for hunting, target shooting, collection, protection of person or property and private security. Although Ukraine reported to the United Nations that civilian possession, import and export of handguns is prohibited for any use, ‘revolvers and pistols’ — and in one example, ‘sporting revolvers and pistols’ — are subject to regulation, but apparently not banned in Ukrainian firearm legislation.

The minimum age to obtain a gun licence is 21, and non-citizens, applicants with a criminal record or a history of domestic violence or mental illness can be denied possession of a firearm. Ukraine's licensing requirements, include the need for identification, training certification, fees, background checks, a genuine reason for obtaining a licence, permits to purchase, a photograph, and planned storage.

From:
https://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/cp/ukraine

 

[AlexBailey]

..., then look at Afghanistan which has fought off 2 world powers because the people were armed and used those arms against those who would seize their lives and lands.

Lol. Yeah, look at Afghanistan. Do you want the U.S. to be divided up among regional warlords? How's their standard of living and human rights?

 

[LittleDixie]

Lol. Yeah, look at Afghanistan. Do you want the U.S. to be divided up among regional warlords? How's their standard of living and human rights?

The point was that an armed population is very hard to dominate.

He wasn't saying "and therefore we should run our country like Afghanistan".

 

[butters]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/t...pc=U531&cvid=57da255f84ee4e05ad18157cc0d5897b

those pesky words 'well regulated'... seems Ukraine's got it right

 

[ll74]

The point was that an armed population is very hard to dominate.

He wasn't saying "and therefore we should run our country like Afghanistan".

An armed militia is hard to dominate.

An armed non militia ends up getting people killed frequently

 

[AlexBailey]

The point was that an armed population is very hard to dominate.

He wasn't saying "and therefore we should run our country like Afghanistan".

Might makes right, right? How are the Afgan people being represented today?

Who decides whether a government has become tyrannical or not? The oath keepers? The proud boys? The Black Panthers? BLM? The Peoples' Temple?

Whoever is the best armed and has the biggest ego has the most authority. If the Jan 6th insurrectionists had been better armed how much of the democratically elected government would have died that day? What would the U.S. government look like now?

 

[Rightguide]

"At the time".

You can still order muzzle-loaders online with no ID. Even in California a muzzle-loader is not legally considered a firearm unless it is primed and ready to fire.


Or are you saying citizens should now be allowed to have "weapons of sufficient lethality" to defeat armies of other nations?

Are you using your brain?

Yes, I am using my brain. That's how I just defeated your lame argument. Our people at the time of the Founding had the same weapon technology as the British Army did and the Founders weren't wetting their pants about it either. If we treated our criminals as they treated theirs, we'd have a lot less crime as well.

 

[Rightguide]

But the British 'tyrants' allowed citizens of the 13 colonies to own and use guns.

Until they wanted them disarmed:

"On April 18, 1775, British troops left Boston headed for the towns of Lexington and Concord. The next day was the first battle of the American Revolution, even though it would be another 15 months before the Declaration of Independence would be written.

The British were not looking for rebels or the leaders who were advocating resistance to the crown. They were under specific orders to seize and destroy arms and munitions believed to be hidden in the two towns. If by some stroke of luck they caught up with Sam Adams or John Hancock, so much the better.

The first battle of the Revolution was fought over gun control. The British government wanted to seize the lawfully owned firearms of the colonists. If British troops could disarm the militia, there would be less of a threat to their control."

https://www.mcall.com/opinion/reade...lution-gun-control-schuon-20150418-story.html

 

[butters]

catholic bishop slams 'sacralizing' of guns, is fed up hearing about more and more mass shootings, the lives of children lost

"Don’t tell me that guns aren’t the problem, people are. I’m sick of hearing it. The darkness first takes our children who then kill our children, using the guns that are easier to obtain than aspirin. We sacralize death’s instruments and then are surprised that death uses them."

"I must say that in some sense, we have kind of sacralized the whole idea of the individual right, such that it trumps any communal concern. It becomes an untouchable aspect in the discourse, that the common concern for the good of the vulnerable is not in any way sufficient to limit the individual right to determine whether or not I want to own this kind of a gun, or that kind of gun, or, you know, a hand grenade for that matter," he added.

"So when you sacralize it, you kind of make it basically closed for discussion, because we practically treat it as if it were sacred," he continued.

As for what should be done, he claimed there should be a discussion over 'access to these weapons" that "... almost gets cut off when we've kind of elevated the individual right beyond proportion."

"When one is talking about the order of society, and access to guns and things like that, it is at a certain level a question of order — and in the noblest sense of the term, it’s a political question," he admitted before adding, "And the failure is that we haven’t been able to deal with it in a political way, and in the noblest sense of what politics is supposed to be, which is the gathering of a consensus within the community, to fulfill its responsibilities for the whole."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opin...pc=U531&cvid=a3afea3349904910b115dc7c3bea0256

 

[pecksniff]

In our realtime timelines right now, the people of Ukraine are resisting the efforts of Russia to subdue them. That would not be possible without arms being borne by the people.

They're fighting this war with a regular army, not a militia. They're using military-grade weapons, not guns everybody brought from home.

 

[pecksniff]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/t...pc=U531&cvid=57da255f84ee4e05ad18157cc0d5897b

those pesky words 'well regulated'... seems Ukraine's got it right

In 18th-Century parlance, "well regulated" means "well armed." The idea was that everybody would have guns at home, and bring them when the militia was called up.

 

[pecksniff]

If we treated our criminals as they treated theirs, we'd have a lot less crime as well.

You're talking about a time when 12-year-olds could be hanged for petty theft.

 

[butters]

In 18th-Century parlance, "well regulated" means "well armed." The idea was that everybody would have guns at home, and bring them when the militia was called up.

this from 'life-long republican and former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Warren Burger', in a clip from 1991:

Warren Burger called the “special interest groups’” interpretation of the Second Amendment one of the “greatest pieces of fraud” on the American public “that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”

“If I were writing the Bill of Rights now, there would not be any such thing as the Second Amendment,” Burger, who was appointed to the Supreme Court by President Richard Nixon told PBS’s News Hour in December 1991.

“Which says?” Asked the interviewer.

“That a well regulated militia being necessary for the defense of the state, it gives peoples rights to bear arms. This has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud — and I repeat the word fraud — on the American public, by special interest groups, that I have ever seen in my lifetime,” Burger said.

“Let’s look at those words,” he continued, actually reading the amendment on air. “There are only three lines of the amendment. A well regulated militia — if the militia which was going to be the state army, if it was going to be well regulated, why shouldn’t 16 or 17 or 18 year old and any other age persons not also be regulated in the use of arms? The way an automobile is regulated.”

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/t...pc=U531&cvid=57da255f84ee4e05ad18157cc0d5897b

 

[butters]

the reasoning of Madison and Hamilton
https://medium.com/technology-taxes-education-columns-by-david-grace/to-understand-the-2nd-amendment-you-have-to-understand-what-guns-were-like-in-1792-888b7fb74011#:~:text=So, number two, everyone who used a gun,Firing a 1792 gun was a slow process.

In 1792 a majority of the population were farmers and/or hunters.

Summary — The Unique Characteristics Of 1792 Guns Made Their Owners Trained & Careful Shooters
In 1792

• Guns were expensive tools and thus were only purchased by hard-working people who used them regularly for serious purposes
• The complicated nature of firing the gun meant that gun owners had to be well trained in the proper operation of their guns in order to be able to use them at all
• The slow rate of fire and limited accuracy meant that gun owners were forced by the nature of the device to be careful, deliberate and thoughtful about where and how they aimed their guns
• The slow rate of fire and limited accuracy meant that the human damage that a single gun-owner could do was severely limited no matter how nefarious his intentions might be.

What Madison & Hamilton Wanted
Madison and Hamilton were Federalists who advocated the adoption of the new constitution in order to create a stronger federal government than the old and relatively weak central government that existed under the Articles of Confederation.
They wanted the new federal government to have the military power to protect itself from invasion and revolts, but they did not have the money nor the desire to create a large, standing federal army.
Their solution to this problem — how to protect the federal government from attack without creating a large standing army — was for the Federal government to have control of the existing state militias and to be able to use them to put down any invasion, rebellion or armed threat to the Federal government’s authority.
This solution was set out in Article I, Section 8 (The Powers Of Congress) of the new Constitution, which provided:
The Congress shall have Power . . .
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; [emphasis added]
The federalists’ opponents who feared a strong federal government were concerned about this language and Hamilton responded to their objections in Federalist Paper 29 (Concerning The Militia) which he wrote in support of Article I, Section 8's authorizing Federal control of state militias.
But, of course, state militias couldn’t protect the federal government from insurrection if they weren’t armed. How could the federal government guarantee that the members of the militias would always have the guns they needed to protect the federal government from invasion and insurrection?
Answer: By including in the Bill of Rights a provision guaranteeing that the members of the militia could not be separated from the guns they would need to protect the federal government from invasion and insurrection — “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State. . . .” Second Amendment begins.
And, in fact, Hamilton’s and Madison’s fear that the federal government might need armed soldiers to defend it against a rebellion proved well founded when in 1794 Washington used the powers granted under Article I, Section 8 to call up the militias of six states to put down the Whiskey Rebellion.
What Did Madison & Hamilton Know About Guns?
Did Madison have any concerns that guaranteeing the right to own a gun might cause some problems?
In late 1791, what did Madison know about guns?
He knew that

• Guns were expensive, which meant that riffraff, common criminals, and the like would not have them because they could not afford them
• Because the hard-working people who did have guns used them all the time, gun owners were, by experience, well trained in their proper use and accurate firing
• Because guns were big, hard to aim, and could only be fired two or three times a minute they were not hugely dangerous in the hands of a person with bad intentions.

In short, Madison knew that there wasn’t a major downside to every adult having the right to buy a gun if he could afford one.
And for a long time all this remained true. It took over sixty years for technology to change everything that Madison thought he knew about guns.

 

[Sh1ne0n67]

In our realtime timelines right now, the people of Ukraine are resisting the efforts of Russia to subdue them. That would not be possible without arms being borne by the people...

You mean the tons of sophisticated weapons and systems that we are dumping into the country
in order to fight a proxy war with Russia... Right?
__________________________________________
Democrat born. Democrat bred. Libertarian led (by Democrats).

 

[Sh1ne0n67]

Chipbutty, why do you have to prove that you are the most ignorant person in any conversation political?
__________________________________________
Democrat born. Democrat bred. Libertarian led (by Democrats).