An argument I hadn't seen yet against 2A - Page 2

An argument I hadn't seen yet against 2A

This is a discussion on An argument I hadn't seen yet against 2A within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Well the profesor is a historian in her mind. Actually all she is a historical revisionist. She failed in her research. The Federalist Papers and ...

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 36
Like Tree127Likes

Thread: An argument I hadn't seen yet against 2A

  1. #16
    Ex Member
    Array 1942bull's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    SE PA
    Posts
    2,103
    Well the profesor is a historian in her mind. Actually all she is a historical revisionist. She failed in her research. The Federalist Papers and other writing of the period detail the debate about the the language and adoption of 2A. It was adopted clearly so that the People could form militias to repel an enemy and conduct a revolution against government if necessary to address grievances. Recall that 2A was adopted after militias were instrumental in both starting d winning a revolution against the English government.

    She might be confused by another little known fact about gun rights and slavery. The first gun control laws in the Nation were in defeated slave states. they were written after the confederacy collapsed and surrendered. The gun control laws then and there were made with slaves in mind. They wanted to keep ex slaves from getting guns out of feaar they would seek revenge on their past salve owners and their families, government officials, slave dealers, etc. The professor is a propogandist.

  2. #17
    Member Array Skolnick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    194
    Quote Originally Posted by Havok View Post
    Things like this are why I don’t think much of someone having a PHD.
    argumentum ad verecundiam

    Appeal to authority: Insisting that a claim is true simply because a valid authority, or expert on the issue, said it was true without any other supporting evidence offered.

    Quote Originally Posted by redmc View Post
    What does, a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a state mean.
    Quote Originally Posted by Havok View Post
    James Madison was smart enough to write down the reason for it.
    What smart James Madison wrote about it in Federalist Papers #46 (hint: "subordinate governments" are free states)

    The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors.

  3. #18
    Member Array Skolnick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    194
    Quote Originally Posted by 1942bull View Post
    Well the profesor is a historian in her mind.
    That reminds me of when HISTORIAN Michael A. Bellesiles, a HISTORIAN, wrote the book "Arming America" in the year 2000. The HISTORIAN found that before the Civil War almost no American had guns.

    According to the HISTORIAN: At the time of the Revolution, fewer than 15 per cent of Americans had firearms--and more than half of those weapons were unworkable. After independence, state legislatures had to pass laws forbidding the mockery of the militia on the annual muster day. Samuel Colt faced bankruptcy because no one wanted his revolver. Even hunting was considered a European aristocratic affectation. The Civil War changed everything, arming the populace and creating the weapons-rich society we have today ...

    The HISTORIAN made that determination by noting that only 14 percent of deceased persons had firearms listed in the inventories of their estates.

    Therefore, to wit, and ergo, folks like Thomas Jefferson, who did not mention any of his firearms in his will, did not possess any firearms -- and more importantly, since few Indian probated firearms in their wills, none of them possessed firearms.

    Mentions of firearms in "Last of the Mohicans" (1826), Icabod Crain's steed "Gunpowder" (1819), or various yarns about, and by Davy Crockett and Daniel Boone, or the expression "lock, stock, and barrel" (dates to 1842), or the expressions "flash in the pan" and "half cocked" (which refer to flintlocks) mean nothing about our pre-Civil War culture.
    Havok, msgt/ret, airslot and 1 others like this.

  4. Remove Advertisements
    DefensiveCarry.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #19
    Senior Member Array pskys2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    666
    To my mind the colonial history of the U.S. isn't genocide as much as it is a case of one social/economic model destroying another. The settlers came to America and saw huge tracts of land with little inhabitants and few settled villages. But human nature being what it is, insults, misunderstandings, greed, cultural differences and even personalities led to violence. In the eastern lands the indeginous people were less nomadic than the plains people. But by the time expansion reached the plains the dye was cast and prejudices were hardened.
    When 2 different societies/civilizations/cultures meet the more advanced "usually" replaces/destroys the weaker. Why the current culture clashes are not following that trend is my question?
    JonathanG likes this.

  6. #20
    VIP Member Array OldVet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    The Florida Twilight Zone
    Posts
    32,859
    That's not a unique argument, that's just stupidity. Proof a college education does not make one smart nor intelligent. I've know more than my share of "educated" people who are dumber than a box of rocks.
    Havok, msgt/ret, airslot and 3 others like this.
    Retired USAF E-8. Curmudgeon on the loose.
    Lighten up and enjoy life because:
    Paranoia strikes deep, into your life it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid... Buffalo Springfield - For What It's Worth

  7. #21
    VIP Member Array OldVet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    The Florida Twilight Zone
    Posts
    32,859
    Quote Originally Posted by OldVet View Post
    That's not a unique argument, that's just stupidity. Proof a college education does not make one smart nor intelligent. I've know more than my share of "educated" people who are dumber than a box of rocks.
    No matter the continual "reasoning" of our forefathers, clearly they intended for the common citizen to be allowed to own and carry arms, whether the traditional knife, sword, or flintlock sidearm of their day, or the current state-of-the-art "arms" of today.
    Havok, airslot, Merovius and 1 others like this.
    Retired USAF E-8. Curmudgeon on the loose.
    Lighten up and enjoy life because:
    Paranoia strikes deep, into your life it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid... Buffalo Springfield - For What It's Worth

  8. #22
    Member Array GeorgeandSugar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Location
    Como
    Posts
    38

    An argument I hadn't seen yet against 2A

    Quote Originally Posted by ShooterGranny View Post
    A far left guy I know is very anti gun, of course. When I reminded him that cars kill 3x or more people every year than guns do, his reply:

    "But guns are made to kill. Cars are not."

    Therefore, it is OK that cars kill and no one should have guns. .... Is your brain rattled enough now?

    NOTE PLEASE: GUNS DO NOT KILL! We know that but I was trying to talk to him in his language. You really cannot reason with those people. They do speak a totally different language!
    Agreed. Just like any inanimate object, it is the “operator” who determines the outcomes. I owe guns, but have not kill anything with them. Likewise, with my car as well. His argument is BS. Given my own life experiences, I am more like to kill someone in a car accident, than with my firearms, but then again, if I was residing in a bad part of town that, it might just the opposite.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Last edited by GeorgeandSugar; June 17th, 2019 at 09:11 PM.

  9. #23
    VIP Member Array Havok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    US
    Posts
    7,371
    Quote Originally Posted by ShooterGranny View Post
    A far left guy I know is very anti gun, of course. When I reminded him that cars kill 3x or more people every year than guns do, his reply:

    "But guns are made to kill. Cars are not."

    Therefore, it is OK that cars kill and no one should have guns. .... Is your brain rattled enough now?

    NOTE PLEASE: GUNS DO NOT KILL! We know that but I was trying to talk to him in his language. You really cannot reason with those people. They do speak a totally different language!
    I can’t stand the whole “guns are made to kill” argument. A gun fires a projectile. Nothing more, nothing less. A car goes forward, backwards, and turns left and right. Where the operator chooses to go is up to them. Someone buying a gun with the intent of using it to kill is no different than renting a box truck with the intention of putting a bomb in the back.
    OldVet, airslot, BamaT and 2 others like this.
    We get the government we deserve.

  10. #24
    Senior Member Array entertainment72's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    643
    Manifest Destiny
    Doghandler likes this.

  11. #25
    Distinguished Member Array BamaT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    1,215
    Quote Originally Posted by jmf552 View Post
    So I thought I had heard them all, but this is a new one for me. I thought I would post it because I think we all need to be well versed on the arguments we are up against.

    Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz has a Ph.D. in history from UCLA, she taught in the newly established Native American Studies Program at California State University, Hayward, and helped found the Departments of Ethnic Studies and Women’s Studies. So you can assume she is a raving alt-liberal.

    Ironically, her argument parallels Heller in that she agrees that the RTKABA is an individual right was not intended aid in the forming of militias. But it is where she goes after that which is troublesome. She claims that the sole purpose for 2A was to ensure that whites could continue to kill Native Americans and push them out of their lands AND have the ability to do "slave patrols." For that reason, she reasons 2A should be eliminated.

    I won't even begin to discuss all that I think is wrong with this argument, because I don't think it deserves that much time and it would go on too long. But I hadn't seen this particular argument before and I thought people should be aware of it.

    https://www.alternet.org/2019/06/her...ond-amendment/
    This is one of the wildest and most absurd things I’ve ever heard of.
    NRA Life Member

  12. #26
    Senior Member Array ButtShot14's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    660
    Ortiz, from UCLA. 'Nuff said.
    Havok likes this.

  13. #27
    VIP Member Array Doghandler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    West Branch
    Posts
    6,136
    Rationalization is why Zen isn't more popular.
    There is a solution but we are not Jedi... not yet.
    Doghandler
    We have deep thinkers and stinkers in this group that could come up with a solution...
    welder516
    Buck the donkey

  14. #28
    Member Array Skolnick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    194
    Quote Originally Posted by ShooterGranny View Post
    But guns are made to kill.
    So what?!

    There are times when it is legal for a citizen to kill another human being. Guns assist in that legal effort. No excuses, no apologies -- if it is legal, then it is legal.

    What is wrong with doing legal things?
    ShooterGranny likes this.

  15. #29
    Distinguished Member Array The Old Anglo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Orlando,Fl
    Posts
    1,972
    Nothing worse than a liberal PH.d.

  16. #30
    Senior Member Array Risasi's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Great Plains
    Posts
    699
    As a mixed race mutt American, married to a Native American and having a bunch of half breed kids running around she can go ...we aren't giving up our guns.


    An argument I hadn't seen yet against 2A-na_gun_control.jpg


    I like how she cleverly is ignoring the fact that the NRA was formed to protect the rights of the freed slaves to bear arms too. She is a disgrace to her people and a shame to her Pueblo husband.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •