Maybe an overtly anti-gun essay review of the history involved will be acceptable as informative?
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...e_turns_on_english_laws_of_1328_and_1689.html
Which is different to what I had said, how, exactly? I mean, I even suggested you go back and read about the Glorious Revolution and the Bill of Rights which was enacted to revert a lot of what King James had done - ie protect and arm the Catholics while attempting to disarm the Protestants (which failed terribly). I also noted how it then attempted to arm the Protestants against the Catholics within the population, to ensure the superiority of the Protestants by King William and Queen Mary, who were Protestant, while Mary's father, James and the Government of his day, favoured the Catholics immensely. While the Government attempted to regulate arms, it wasn't that successful. Just ask King James...
You have three guesses as to what demographic and regional category of British citizens provided the bulk of the pioneer Americans who revolted against the Crown and wrote the US Constitution. First two don't count. And if any of them include those noble enough, rich enough, and/or living on grand enough estates not in Ireland or Scotland to be permitted to hunt in the mid 1700s, and therefore allowed to carry firearms on their own authority, you're just fooling yourself.
The Government's attempts to disarm the Scots failed dismally. The revolt against Britain was because of increased taxes and because the colonists felt they should have representation in Britain's Parliament and that taxes should be imposed by a direct representative and not a distant Government and Crown. When the Government of Britain passed laws to disarm the colonialists in the US, it was with the full support of the "peasantry" of the UK, as well as the Monarch, as they felt that the Americans were demanding a seat at a table they did not feel you belonged to. There is a reason why so many young British men volunteered to come and fight the Americans.. You know, the "peasantry" of Britain literally wanted to bring the US to heel. They felt that the acts of the colonists in the US were overtly aggressive and no colonial power would be willing to give up that much (ie the US that the British controlled at that point). You do get that, right?
There's no "gun advocate" present. That's dishonest, and it's slander, and it's misrepresentation of my posting.
You are attempting to deny written history. That is dishonest - you have been provided with information.
There's no such "narrative" involved, and you are not dealing with the information provided or the content of the post you claim to be responding to.
And that manner of posting, the troll question or Fox question, is dishonest in the extreme.
I am not the one rewriting history to suit a narrative. As in literally, I am not. Thus far I have seen one individual present an essay of sorts that twisted history to such an extent that it was a painful read. Americans have been taught a bizarre version of events and the reason is because it suits the narrative of your country's founding. It's the same reason why the British colonials in Australia white washed the hundreds of massacres of Indigenous Australians and attempted to falsely claim
terra nullius for generations, when it clearly was not. It isn't unusual or new or original. You have made claims that the monarchy disarmed the populace. It did not. No monarchy or monarch has ever been able to disarm the "peasants" or the "peasantry".
It's like the history taught of how the British stole your gunpowder and weapons and then placed the embargo.. What seems to constantly be missing is that in the ensuing standoff, the British paid for the gunpowder and weapons that were taken as a deal. Your founders were already buying weapons from the Netherlands and Spain and I believe France as well, to bypass any threat of embargo or ban of allowing weapons into the US. Instead, the history seems to focus on the disarmament, but not the payments, or the fact that you were free to buy weapons from other colonial powers that held parts of the US at that time.
You were perturbed? Aww..
Same reason conquerers and despots and dictators and authoritarians and the like always do. Did you somehow miss the central point of all those posts you responded to? Disarming the peasantry is something any oppressive State will do automatically. It's a no-brainer, is how I put it above.
Now, what is the risk of this happening again in the US?
That was my initial question in this thread.
Same reason conquerers and despots and dictators and authoritarians and the like always do. Did you somehow miss the central point of all those posts you responded to? Disarming the peasantry is something any oppressive State will do automatically. It's a no-brainer, is how I put it above.
Again, what is the risk of this happening again in the US?
The authors of the American Constitution were slaveholders, who carefully disarmed their slaves. They knew very well why they didn't want a central government to be able to disarm them. It's not that they had some kind of moral or philosophical objection to disarming people (such as Reds or Blacks or - later, out west - Yellows and Browns), they just didn't want to suffer the consequences of being disarmed themselves.
Ermm actually, the slaves that were brought and bought and sold in the US were disarmed upon capture in Africa. It wasn't careful. And it happened long before your founders were even a twinkle in their parents eyes. These policies were in place before the US even became part of the slave trade.
Of course. What's your point?
You did notice that the 2nd Amendment was directed specifically at Congress, right? I have pointed this out to you a couple of times now. It curbs the American analogy of a Parliament, prevents it from doing what the British government did - regardless of popular sentiment or support.
You kind of missed the point I was making.
But that's okay.
They didn't want to recreate the oppression of Crown rule, in their new central government. And they had specific ideas, thoroughly grounded in experience and education, about how to prevent it.
But they didn't prevent it, did they? By which I mean that the document they created, allowed for the oppression of others.
In the sense that their own version of oppression of others, carried on on an even worse scale and it lasted for generations.
In fact, it continues to this day. The well armed militia was meant to fight against oppression. I sometimes wonder how the founders would spin in their graves if the descendants of slaves and Native Americans armed themselves in the way that the US colonists armed themselves.. In other words, your founding fathers and their Constitution guaranteed rights to white males only. Which kind of makes the reliance on their actions during that time as proof of rising against tyranny, eyebrow raising at a minimum.
