One of my favorite discredited gun control arguments

Discussion in 'Gun Control' started by Turtledude, Mar 10, 2023.

  1. Pro_Line_FL

    Pro_Line_FL Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2018
    Messages:
    25,624
    Likes Received:
    13,915
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No worries, I heard your "I don't like it, so I don't believe it" argument the first 10 times. No need to keep repeating it.

    I did see him say anything about Federal control. I was only interested in the historical aspects.

    Have a nice day.

    upload_2023-3-24_11-58-58.jpeg
     
    Last edited: Mar 24, 2023
  2. Turtledude

    Turtledude Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2015
    Messages:
    30,265
    Likes Received:
    20,249
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I always wonder about posters who claim to support people being able to own guns but constantly attack pro gun arguments or bolster anti gun arguments. Invariably it comes down to politics-Democrats-even ones who own guns-don't like the fact that their party is the party of gun bans
     
    Trixare4kids likes this.
  3. Reality

    Reality Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2014
    Messages:
    21,456
    Likes Received:
    7,604
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The source you cited o wise and learned one.

    It shows what the founders contemplated: A populace that needed only legal permission to reave enemy shipping.
    That's what a letter of Marque or a Reprisal allows. They are not permission to ARM. They are permission to take one's arms and shoot first certain flagged shipping named in the letter or certain ships owned by a particular person (depending on the remit in each case), board them, kill any who resist you, crew the ship, take it and its cargo back to port, and chop it up. LITERALLY in a court case that adjudicates who is owed what and if things were done good and proper.
     
    Last edited: Mar 24, 2023
  4. Pro_Line_FL

    Pro_Line_FL Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2018
    Messages:
    25,624
    Likes Received:
    13,915
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You do NOT have an argument, so there is nothing to attack. I am talking about HISTORY, and for whatever reason it offends you to no end.

    That's all it is for you, and ALWAYS will be. Everything in your life is Dem vs GOP, which is why your mind will always be closed, and you'll always say "if I don't like it, I don't believe it", and that applies to everything which does not originate from your beloved political party leaders. I am not a Democrat, so its not my party, and do not support strict gun control, and even here I am simply talking about how things were 250 years ago, but for whatever reason you take it to be some kind of attack against you. That's on you. not me.
     
  5. Pro_Line_FL

    Pro_Line_FL Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2018
    Messages:
    25,624
    Likes Received:
    13,915
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Ships? Ok. Cool beans. Please do not pretend I have commented on something I have not commented on. I still have no idea why you brought this up, but like I said.....cool beans.
     
    Last edited: Mar 24, 2023
  6. Reality

    Reality Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2014
    Messages:
    21,456
    Likes Received:
    7,604
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You cited the source and made a laundry list claim. Don't be coy now.

    Ships with cannons, both anti material and anti personnel, with crew members armed with firearms and boarding axes.
    There were no federal restrictions at that time because they would violate the 2nd amendment which as part of the Bill of Rights applied to the feds only at that time.
    Post 14th amendment, that same prohibition gets applied as against the states.

    Therefore: To cite an analogous provision for purposes of gun control, only federal statutes or regulations are relevant to the discussion. Pointing out anything else only points out that your source doesn't understand the assignment and is to be disregarded in their opinion. As should anyone who cites them as a source.
     
    Last edited: Mar 24, 2023
    Turtledude likes this.
  7. Reality

    Reality Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2014
    Messages:
    21,456
    Likes Received:
    7,604
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No you specifically said it was what the Founders endorsed as gun control. Which is silly, see discussions above.
     
    Last edited: Mar 24, 2023
  8. Turtledude

    Turtledude Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2015
    Messages:
    30,265
    Likes Received:
    20,249
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    as I have noted, but for FDR's machinations-all federal gun control would immediately be shitcanned based on the tenth amendment first, the second second. In state cases, the courts will have to decide what pre-existing state police powers-ASSUMING-they are constitutional under the relevant state's constitution. violate the second amendment. Obviously, some USE restrictions (no outdoor shooting in the middle of an urban center, no hunting deer with 22 rim fire rifles, no minors carrying firearms in school) are going to pass muster. Many will not, however
     
  9. Turtledude

    Turtledude Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2015
    Messages:
    30,265
    Likes Received:
    20,249
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    so tell us what is your point in posting "historical facts" that anti gun extremists wrote about. What was your purpose
     
  10. Pro_Line_FL

    Pro_Line_FL Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2018
    Messages:
    25,624
    Likes Received:
    13,915
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I did not make any claims. I listed 5 things which were true 250 yrs ago.

    Sure. Sounds like a good fighting militia. The whole point here is that militias were supported, and encouraged. Any member of such militia SHOULD have a firearm.

    There is no assignment, and no call for federal restriction, and no one said the gun control back them was Federal. It is simply a matter of looking at how things were 250 yrs ago. You are free to disregard anything you want of course, but if that is what you are doing, then why are you posting?

    So, you are concerned about Federal vs Local. If someone knocks on your door and tells you to turn over all your guns, it would go like this

    Them: "We're here to collect your guns. Please hand them over"

    You: "No way Jose, the 2A protects me"

    Them: "Oh, no, we're from the city, we're not the Feds"

    You: "Ooooh....ok, got it. Let me get them for you"

    I don't think people care who the gun grabbers are if they are going to lose their guns either way.

    So, I am not sure what your disagreement is all about, but its cool. We agree to disagree either way.

    I said those things happened during the time of the Founders. Obviously they did not do anything about it, so either they condoned it, or had better things to do.
     
    Last edited: Mar 24, 2023
  11. Pro_Line_FL

    Pro_Line_FL Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2018
    Messages:
    25,624
    Likes Received:
    13,915
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I like history, but enough with the repetition. Let's just bury it and pretend it never happened.
     
    Turtledude likes this.
  12. Reality

    Reality Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2014
    Messages:
    21,456
    Likes Received:
    7,604
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ah still being coy I see. Why do you lack the courage of your convictions? You realize we can all see what you posted right?

    See here again you reveal your complete lack of understanding of history while you state you love history quite loudly.
    A privateer is a NON state actor. A militia attacking property of another nation is an act of war. A privateer taking shipping applicable under his letter of marque or under a reprisal, is PER SE 1) not a state action and 2) not casus belli

    At least for some 500 + years into the mid 1800's when the Euros got sore about getting their **** pushed in constantly by "american bumpkins" on the high seas. Though I note we never signed that treaty, ergo we still hold to the original common law conception.

    I'm concerned about your lack of understanding of how the Constitution, BOR, 2A, Federal law, state law, the 14th amendment, and case law interact.

    No, I'd point to the state constitution in any of the 13 original colonies which endorsed a right to keep and bear arms in a quite similar way. And in the modern day I'd say: Well you'll need to de-incorporate the 2nd amendment by amending the 14th amendment now leave before I shoot you.
     
  13. Grau

    Grau Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2015
    Messages:
    9,035
    Likes Received:
    4,223
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    Anyone who has taken the time to read even just a few quotes from the founding fathers can have no doubt that they strongly supported an American citizen's individual Right own firearms.

    For example:

    - “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”
    – Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776


    - “The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.”
    – Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824


    - “To disarm the people…s the most effectual way to enslave them.”
    – George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788


    - “I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.”
    – George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788


    - “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country.”
    – James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789


    - “Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined…. The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.”
    – Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778


    These and additional quotes can be found at:

    "Gun Quotes From 20 of America’s Founding Fathers – 2nd Amendment"
    https://www.concealedcarry.com/gun-quotes-from-our-founding-fathers-2nd-amendment/
     
  14. Pro_Line_FL

    Pro_Line_FL Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2018
    Messages:
    25,624
    Likes Received:
    13,915
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Can you explain that conviction? If you argue against non existing convictions then you are arguing you own strawman.

    I get it that you introduced this into the discussion because its something you want to discuss, but please do not pretend I have said something about it, because I have not.

    That's odd given the fact that I have said nothing about it.

    Either you mistake me for someone else, or you argue strawmen.

    Have fun with it.
     
    Last edited: Mar 24, 2023
  15. Pro_Line_FL

    Pro_Line_FL Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2018
    Messages:
    25,624
    Likes Received:
    13,915
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yes, they encouraged militias, which require armed, trained and disciplined men. No doubt about that. However there is no contradiction with that and certain precautions which were in place back them, as discussed before.
     
  16. Reality

    Reality Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2014
    Messages:
    21,456
    Likes Received:
    7,604
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sure sure sure.

    Your source examines the constitution and comes to an incorrect conclusion, as do many.
    I simply pointed you to the important information that can cure your ignorance of the history which you continuously cry out about.
    You don't have to drink it.
     
  17. Pro_Line_FL

    Pro_Line_FL Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2018
    Messages:
    25,624
    Likes Received:
    13,915
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It does not examine the Constitution, it examines history. Can you read?

    Why the insults?

    Take them and shove 'em.
     
  18. Reality

    Reality Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2014
    Messages:
    21,456
    Likes Received:
    7,604
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You've implied this was novel information for you, hence you were ignorant of it prior to being told or 'cured'. These are not insults, these are objective facts given what you've said.

    You earlier said I was 'shrieking'. Cry out = to shriek. Should your prior post be censored then? Or are we in agreement that is not an insult? Choose.
     
  19. Pro_Line_FL

    Pro_Line_FL Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2018
    Messages:
    25,624
    Likes Received:
    13,915
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Whatever makes you happy Mr Vain Strawman
     
  20. Reality

    Reality Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2014
    Messages:
    21,456
    Likes Received:
    7,604
    Trophy Points:
    113
    O noes!!!! Not an ad hominem attack violating forum rules after you made an ad hominem attack then complained of one in the same vein!!

    See how silly that seems?
     
  21. Grau

    Grau Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2015
    Messages:
    9,035
    Likes Received:
    4,223
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    I look more closely at the article you posted which is essentially an opinion piece and found it to be misleading.

    A cursory glance would lead one to believe that American citizens of the Colonial times had to register their guns which is completely false.

    Next, a closer look at the article reveals that the carrying of guns at the time was only illegal in London.... not even America .

    Are you really asserting that American citizens had to register their guns after the War of Independence when few guns even had serial numbers ?

    Thanks,


    Re:


    Re:
     
  22. DentalFloss

    DentalFloss Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2013
    Messages:
    11,445
    Likes Received:
    3,263
    Trophy Points:
    113
    OK, well Daytona I can sort of understand, because outside of Spring Break, pretty much the only people who live there are stuck there, and probably not very high on the socioeconomic ladder, and there isn't much commerce to speak of outside of bars, hotels, and tourist trap stores.

    Ft Lauderdale is, or was anyway, a different story. I haven't been there in 20 years, but at that time I did a lot of business there, had some good customers with good businesses of their own (I'm an IT geek), and it seemed like a well-rounded place to live that didn't exist solely for recreation at certain times of the year. At that time, Miami OTOH, was like a foreign country. English wasn't even the second language around there, in fact, I found more English speakers when I went to Japan than I did in Miami. But, that wasn't my territory so I was just passing through and never formed much of an opinion.

    So, to the meat of your question... Why does Ft. Lauderdale have a higher crime rate than other places in the State and Country. I have no idea. Don't know enough about the place as it currently exists. So, I hate to rewind the conversation, but if you do live there, then... You tell me, because I don't know.
     
  23. DentalFloss

    DentalFloss Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2013
    Messages:
    11,445
    Likes Received:
    3,263
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I have never been a fan of that interpretation, though it is largely irrelevant now after the incorporation clause. Still, what good does it do to restrict the Feds from an unreasonable search and seizure if the States can knock on your door for literally no reason, and you are obligated to let them in, and they can hold any evidence found against you?
     
  24. DentalFloss

    DentalFloss Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2013
    Messages:
    11,445
    Likes Received:
    3,263
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No speech has been criminalized. This you know, which makes that statement an unqualified and intentional lie. If that were true, Ron's gestapo (that doesn't exist) would have already raided your home, because you give him crap from both barrels. Funny I don't remember you doing that until he became a presumptive candidate for POTUS in '24. The press either.

    But then, he did become a presumptive candidate, and all of a sudden, he was Satan. Hmmm...
     
  25. Reality

    Reality Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2014
    Messages:
    21,456
    Likes Received:
    7,604
    Trophy Points:
    113
    States had their own constitutions, which their own populations voted on and could effect without interference by other states citizens or their governments. Federalism.
    As you say, its irrelevant now, we changed the Constitution to apply to the BOR to the states.
     

Share This Page