“The Founders Couldn’t Have Imagined Assault Rifles,” She Blogged

Discussion in 'Gun Control' started by rover77, Apr 4, 2017.

  1. 6Gunner

    6Gunner Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2010
    Messages:
    5,631
    Likes Received:
    4,062
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I disagree, and disagree fundamentally. The Founders - men like Jefferson, Madison, and others - believed fervently in the idea of the American citizen owning and utilizing weapons equivalent to that used by the common foot soldier. They would have scoffed at the idea that firearms are a "threat to public safety". That very theory is based on the flawed premise that you shouldn't have to take responsibility for yourself or your own security, which is one the Founders would have been deeply offended by.

    Jefferson was a brilliant man, and the above is a clear example of that. However, the theory that guns are to blame for society's ills is rooted in a LESS enlightened, LESS developed philosophy. You cite Jefferson, and I will note a quote of Cesare Beccaria that Jefferson himself liked to cite: "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... only disarm those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
     
    rover77 likes this.
  2. vman12

    vman12 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2015
    Messages:
    66,645
    Likes Received:
    46,473
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Washington had to put down armed rebellions soon after the formation of the nation amid the Whiskey Rebellions.

    Gun confiscation before, during or after those actions were never even discussed, which speaks volumes for how the founders felt about the 2A.
     
    Reality likes this.
  3. 6Gunner

    6Gunner Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2010
    Messages:
    5,631
    Likes Received:
    4,062
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Exactly so.
     
    Reality likes this.
  4. Rucker61

    Rucker61 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2016
    Messages:
    9,774
    Likes Received:
    4,103
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Especially given the Congress and Adams had no problem passing laws to limit free speech.
     
    Reality likes this.
  5. Galileo

    Galileo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    2,860
    Likes Received:
    481
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Washington had no reservations about using gun confiscation to suppress rebellions.

    "I have it in special instruction from the President of the United States,3 now at this place, to convey to you on his behalf, the following instructions for the general direction of your conduct in the command of the Militia army, with which you are charged....

    "Of those persons in arms, if any, whom you may make prisoners; leaders, including all persons in command, are to be delivered up to the civil magistrate: the rest to be disarmed, admonished and sent home (except such as may have been particularly violent and also influential) causing their own recognizances for their good behaviour to be taken, in the cases in which it may be deemed expedient."
    https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-17-02-0317
     
    Last edited: Apr 7, 2017
  6. vman12

    vman12 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2015
    Messages:
    66,645
    Likes Received:
    46,473
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes.

    He disarmed those currently fighting him, and sent them home, where they could legally then acquire another firearm.

    Was a law passed precluding those men from ever owning another firearm, or any gun control laws passed? Hm? Buehler?

    That was a really weak attempt. I hope you didn't spend a lot of time researching that one.
     
    Last edited: Apr 7, 2017
    Reality and Rucker61 like this.
  7. Galileo

    Galileo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    2,860
    Likes Received:
    481
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Obviously, you're changing the goal posts.
     
  8. QLB

    QLB Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2015
    Messages:
    11,696
    Likes Received:
    2,019
    Trophy Points:
    113
    But you are the snowflakes aren't Washington.
     
  9. vman12

    vman12 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2015
    Messages:
    66,645
    Likes Received:
    46,473
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Obviously, you're deflecting from actual debate.

    Despite the Whiskey Rebellion, the founding fathers did not even SUGGEST gun control as a solution to the problem.

    Go ahead and try to debate that if you think you can.
     
  10. Rucker61

    Rucker61 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2016
    Messages:
    9,774
    Likes Received:
    4,103
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Guns were confiscated from those in actual rebellion. Did George confiscate guns from their neighbors, too?
     
  11. Galileo

    Galileo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    2,860
    Likes Received:
    481
    Trophy Points:
    83
    They did use gun confiscation to solve the problem.

    Do you think Trump would support disarming a bunch of Islamic militants and barring them from ever purchasing firearms again? I think he would. Of course, 200 years ago people didn't have telephones and computers. So there wasn't really a way to conduct criminal background checks. There wasn't really a practical way to ban certain people from purchasing firearms. But now there is so what happened 200 years ago is not really relevant.
     
  12. Galileo

    Galileo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    2,860
    Likes Received:
    481
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Many of their neighbors likely served in the militia which was under the control of Congress. So there would be no point in disarming people on your own side.
     
  13. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    23,895
    Likes Received:
    7,537
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Did the soldiers of George Washington go to the homes of these rebellious individuals and physically confiscate every single firearm that was found? Were these individuals legally precluded from ever owning or otherwise possessing a firearm again for the duration of their lives?

    What you cite, was an example of confiscating firearms from those who were engaged in an illegal act at the time. They were not confiscated for the purpose of preventing an illegal act from occurring at a later date.

    Militants would suggest that they are currently involved in an illegal act that is threatening the public at the time of the event.

    Which is of no relevance.

    Even today there isn't a practical way to go about prohibiting certain individuals from illegally possessing a firearm. So long as they remain free in public where they can do the most harm, they can easily acquire a firearm, regardless of what the law may say otherwise.
     
  14. Galileo

    Galileo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    2,860
    Likes Received:
    481
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Regardless, gun confiscation to some degree was part of the solution.


    Yes, thanks to the loopholes that people on your side support who don't seem to care if such loopholes endanger innocent people or national security.
     
  15. vman12

    vman12 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2015
    Messages:
    66,645
    Likes Received:
    46,473
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, they took the firearms from the people actively fighting them and sent them home.

    That isn't "gun confiscation", that's "combat".
     
  16. Rucker61

    Rucker61 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2016
    Messages:
    9,774
    Likes Received:
    4,103
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There. Is. No. Loophole.

    There's also no enforcement of the Brady Act now, even with the names and addresses of every felonious offender of the Form 4473 rule.
     
    vman12 likes this.
  17. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    23,895
    Likes Received:
    7,537
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Exclusively when dealing with enemy combatants, who are engaged in combat at that moment in time. Not before, not after, only during. And there was no legal restriction on federal or state levels that prevented them from acquiring new firearms after the fact. There was no house-to-house confiscation going on. There was no confiscation of firearms in order to prevent an armed uprising from occurring.

    An assumption for which there is no basis or evidence. No allegiance or loyalty between those that own firearms, and myself, has ever been demonstrated. It is of no concern of myself if individuals own firearms or not. Those that have the support of myself are those who demonstrate the greatest ability to convey a coherent thought, with citeable facts, who refrain from appealing to meaningless and irrelevant emotions, and who refrain from engaging in intellectual dishonesty to try and reinforce points that cannot be defended otherwise.

    Pray tell why do you support allowing known dangerous individuals to remain free in society, where they can do the most harm, long after they have proven that they cannot and will not abide by the rules of society?

    You claim that loopholes exist. Such has been demonstrated as false. There are no legal avenues for a prohibited individual to acquire a firearm. Any acquisition, no matter the circumstances, is a criminal offense, and can be prosecuted.

    Your argument makes no sense. It is no different than claiming there are loopholes that facilitate murder if a murder occurs in a remote area where the victim is not readily discovered.
     
  18. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    One of two things:
    Either you did not know your statement was made in a context useless to your point, or you did and do not care.
    Further proof that the anti-gun side can only argue from emotion, ignorance, and/or dishonesty
     
  19. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,871
    Likes Received:
    73,626
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Excuse me???
    Personally I think the authors of the Magna Carta were more intelligent and influential

    Your founders were not gods - they were ordinary humans and they made mistakes

    And the plagiarised like there was no tomorrow
     
  20. Rucker61

    Rucker61 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2016
    Messages:
    9,774
    Likes Received:
    4,103
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Do you see the flaw in your argument?
     
  21. An Taibhse

    An Taibhse Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2016
    Messages:
    7,238
    Likes Received:
    4,819
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Should we all bow to your monumental and superior intellect?
     
  22. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,871
    Likes Received:
    73,626
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Not mine - try the 1215 Archbishop of Canterbury that put the original Magna Carta together - worth reading

    Has a LOT of principles subsequently found in many constitutions and parliamentary rules to this day

    https://www.pri.org/stories/2014-08...ll-influences-modern-perceptions-civil-rights

    Ps it was the reaction to a very unpopular King that brought this document about - John was so unpopular that no English king is to bear that name again and it also became synonymous with toilet
     
    Last edited: Apr 8, 2017
  23. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You also believe banning 'assault weapons' can, will, and has had a positive effect on suicide rates, thus rendering all of your opinions rather circumspect.
     
  24. QLB

    QLB Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2015
    Messages:
    11,696
    Likes Received:
    2,019
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's a stupid argument at best and typical of liberal thought or the lack thereof. Da Vinci imagined airplanes, multiple shot firearms, submarines and tanks and the Founding Fathers were aware of Da Vinci and other like him.
     
  25. QLB

    QLB Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2015
    Messages:
    11,696
    Likes Received:
    2,019
    Trophy Points:
    113
     

Share This Page