One need only read literally anything else the founding father wrote on the topic to know where they stood on private ownership of firearms, and the vast majority of them were fully for it.Yukaphile wrote: ↑Tue Oct 30, 2018 1:35 am Not arguing that. But we can do better with enough time to evolve, social reforms, and improvements in technology. I do believe that. I just won't live to see it, and that... infuriates me. And no. The Founding Fathers weren't pro-gun at all. Not in the way you think today. They wanted the local militias to have the right to grab their muskets to defend their homes at a minute's notice, hence "minutemen." If they knew how far guns had advanced today, they'd have worded their laws better to adjust for those technological shifts, believe me. Look at this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CDtSHAmoFg
OMG... only because of the government. And how their parents and education raised them. They're not aliens. They're human beings, who had all the same potential we had.
President Neelix self-identifies as a Nationalist
Re: President Neelix self-identifies as a Nationalist
"Black care rarely sits behind a rider whose pace is fast enough."
-TR
-TR
-
Yukaphile
- Overlord
- Posts: 8778
- Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2017 8:14 am
- Location: Rabid Posting World
- Contact:
Re: President Neelix self-identifies as a Nationalist
Because it was up to the local militias to defend their homes at a minute's notice. The world wasn't as connected as it is today. You needed a fucking horse that took weeks or months to make a journey to a town miles away. Their guns were primitive, had poor aim, and fired off one round that took a while to reload. If they'd had machine guns back then, and a more connected world, don't you think they would have worded the language of gun ownership properly? Maybe some wouldn't. Some would. I don't think that fact should be in dispute.
"A culture's teachings - and more importantly, the nature of its people - achieve definition in conflict. They find themselves, or find themselves lacking."
— Kreia, Knights of the Old Republic 2: The Sith Lords
— Kreia, Knights of the Old Republic 2: The Sith Lords
Re: President Neelix self-identifies as a Nationalist
It was also specifically identified as a check against the government. And the musket argument is a tired old argument that only makes sense to people who lack understanding of firearms and of history. Believe it or not, there were repeating firearms at the time. And muskets were the common military small arm of the day. If anything they might be appalled at the disparity between civilian and military firearms. The Second Amendment makes as much sense as any of the others in its wording to those who are not looking to undermine it. And as I already pointed out, one need only look at the Federalist Papers, newspaper articles, letters, and journals they wrote to see what their thoughts were on the subject.
"Black care rarely sits behind a rider whose pace is fast enough."
-TR
-TR
-
Yukaphile
- Overlord
- Posts: 8778
- Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2017 8:14 am
- Location: Rabid Posting World
- Contact:
Re: President Neelix self-identifies as a Nationalist
Because government didn't have as much power as they do now, like nuclear bombs, tanks, and jets. And oh come ON. They did not have repeating machine guns that could fire thousands of bullets in five seconds back then. Nope, nope, nope. That was just not a thing. If you really think so, you're delusional. Hell, wasn't the gatling gun invented in the 19th century? That was basically the first use of what we'd think of as the machine gun, and as artillery, not a personal weapon.
"A culture's teachings - and more importantly, the nature of its people - achieve definition in conflict. They find themselves, or find themselves lacking."
— Kreia, Knights of the Old Republic 2: The Sith Lords
— Kreia, Knights of the Old Republic 2: The Sith Lords
-
Antiboyscout
- Captain
- Posts: 1158
- Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2017 6:13 am
Re: President Neelix self-identifies as a Nationalist
Private ownership of cannons was a thing as well. Ownership of an armed ship was also a thing. An armed schooner with an array of cannons is still more than a match of one guy with a machine gun.Yukaphile wrote: ↑Tue Oct 30, 2018 9:29 am Because government didn't have as much power as they do now, like nuclear bombs, tanks, and jets. And oh come ON. They did not have repeating machine guns that could fire thousands of bullets in five seconds back then. Nope, nope, nope. That was just not a thing. If you really think so, you're delusional. Hell, wasn't the gatling gun invented in the 19th century? That was basically the first use of what we'd think of as the machine gun, and as artillery, not a personal weapon.
Re: President Neelix self-identifies as a Nationalist
Repeating arms are not just machine guns - they are anything that can hold more than one shot that can be fired in succession.
Anti-gun types seem to be under the mistaken impression that a civilian resistance force would be trying to fight toe-to-toe with the military. That would not be a winning strategy. The point of a civilian resistance is not to win so much as it is to make continued occupation untenable. That's what the Maquis and other resistance groups in occupied Europe were about, and we even have some modern examples in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Anti-gun types seem to be under the mistaken impression that a civilian resistance force would be trying to fight toe-to-toe with the military. That would not be a winning strategy. The point of a civilian resistance is not to win so much as it is to make continued occupation untenable. That's what the Maquis and other resistance groups in occupied Europe were about, and we even have some modern examples in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"Black care rarely sits behind a rider whose pace is fast enough."
-TR
-TR
-
Yukaphile
- Overlord
- Posts: 8778
- Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2017 8:14 am
- Location: Rabid Posting World
- Contact:
Re: President Neelix self-identifies as a Nationalist
Do you see many rich people owning tanks or jets today? No. Another way the world has changed. Because they were often huge benefactors back than who could afford such innovations. And that doesn't speak to the masses at large. It speaks to a handful of people. The many vs. the few.
Occupation... in our country? Are you that terrified of the government? My God, I know it's not perfect, and most of it is corrupt, but like anything else, it can be reformed. Are you that paranoid you expect attack at any second that you feel we must be armed at all times? Trust me, if our government went full-blown dictatorship, then there's no way we'd win. Yeah, there'd be a little bit of resistance, but most people wouldn't be willing to stick their necks out that way. They'd just wanna protect them close to them. As to the Maquis, it didn't help them at all, did it? They still needed the Allies to liberate France. The Nazis still had absolute power over every nation they conquered until the Allies busted through and shattered them. Look at Latin America, our neighbors. Do you see a majority of populations rising up in armed revolt there when the governments became dictatorships? No, it's usually the military that's become the major players. Hell, lemme ask you this. If they banned all guns, do you think we could actually get them back? Like, you don't want a police state here in the same vein as the USSR or Nazi Germany, because then they can use military force to pass their edicts. And come down harsh on breaking the law. Torturing and publicly executing those trafficking in illegal arms to "supply the resistance." Listen to me. You hate the government, you wanna stop it, you vote to reform it. You don't walk up to it with a knife and backstab it. Because that's like trying to kill a rock with a wet sponge. YOU WILL LOSE. Where the hell would "the government" go anyway, from the occupation in our own country? The worse resistance gets, the harsher they get, to the point they might start nuking cities. Future dystopian works have portrayed just that. Seriously, do you even live in the same reality? Or is this a problem with all Libertarians? The rights of a principle, owning a gun, is more important than a human being's life?
Occupation... in our country? Are you that terrified of the government? My God, I know it's not perfect, and most of it is corrupt, but like anything else, it can be reformed. Are you that paranoid you expect attack at any second that you feel we must be armed at all times? Trust me, if our government went full-blown dictatorship, then there's no way we'd win. Yeah, there'd be a little bit of resistance, but most people wouldn't be willing to stick their necks out that way. They'd just wanna protect them close to them. As to the Maquis, it didn't help them at all, did it? They still needed the Allies to liberate France. The Nazis still had absolute power over every nation they conquered until the Allies busted through and shattered them. Look at Latin America, our neighbors. Do you see a majority of populations rising up in armed revolt there when the governments became dictatorships? No, it's usually the military that's become the major players. Hell, lemme ask you this. If they banned all guns, do you think we could actually get them back? Like, you don't want a police state here in the same vein as the USSR or Nazi Germany, because then they can use military force to pass their edicts. And come down harsh on breaking the law. Torturing and publicly executing those trafficking in illegal arms to "supply the resistance." Listen to me. You hate the government, you wanna stop it, you vote to reform it. You don't walk up to it with a knife and backstab it. Because that's like trying to kill a rock with a wet sponge. YOU WILL LOSE. Where the hell would "the government" go anyway, from the occupation in our own country? The worse resistance gets, the harsher they get, to the point they might start nuking cities. Future dystopian works have portrayed just that. Seriously, do you even live in the same reality? Or is this a problem with all Libertarians? The rights of a principle, owning a gun, is more important than a human being's life?
"A culture's teachings - and more importantly, the nature of its people - achieve definition in conflict. They find themselves, or find themselves lacking."
— Kreia, Knights of the Old Republic 2: The Sith Lords
— Kreia, Knights of the Old Republic 2: The Sith Lords
Re: President Neelix self-identifies as a Nationalist
Uh, yeah, actually. Most of them are demilitarized, but some of them are still functional. What does that have to do with anything, though? The amendment says "arms" not ordinance.
If I keep a fire extinguisher in my house am I terrified of fire? It's kind of funny though, because the pro-gun types aren't the ones accusing the sitting President of being literally Hitler.Occupation... in our country? Are you that terrified of the government?
Like I said, winning isn't the goal.Trust me, if our government went full-blown dictatorship, then there's no way we'd win.
"Black care rarely sits behind a rider whose pace is fast enough."
-TR
-TR
