Gawdzilla Sama
Valued Senior Member
Beautiful bit of tail chasing there.
As everywhere on earth under feudalism, where the word came from: The agricultural field workers and domestic servants and so forth, the "hands", who did not own land but worked for the landlord, and were disarmed as a matter of policy by an oppressive government. In this case, the governments involved were certain States, and then the Confederacy of these States.
The Civil War was fought between two formal, government commanded and organized and uniformed and equipped, official armies - and navies, etc. Not militias.
Had the peasantry of the South been armed, they could not have been oppressed. Had they not been disarmed and oppressed, the Confederate government could not have been formed - and the Civil War could not have been fought.
The US paid a steep price for not granting Constitutional rights to the southern field hands and domestics, especially the right to keep and bear arms. Lesson learned?
There are many categories of disarmed peasantry - the close association of disarmament with serfdom, indentured servitude, transportee of one kind or another, etc, is a general feature. No point in introducing extraneous and likely confusing features.Do you mean the slaves, just say 'the slaves' if that is what you mean. If the slaves had been armed there would have been no south to begin with.
And they were closely involved in disarming others, as direct witnesses of means and consequences, including during the century after formal slavery had been ostensibly ended - which in my opinion partly explains the intransigence of their direct descendants when faced with any hint of being disarmed themselves.Oh oh do you mean the non-slave owning poor whites of the south? They were armed.
The reason I have been advocating for universal background checks so consistently for years on this forum is that I don't see much wrong with them. That's probably why almost all Americans favor them, as well.Enough this is moronic, it has nothing to do with today, you won't even define your words correctly, back to the topic: tell me again what is wrong with universal background checks?
And you use the term in a general fashion. Obfuscation alert.There are many categories of disarmed peasantry - the close association of disarmament with serfdom, indentured servitude, transportee of one kind or another, etc, is a general feature. No point in introducing extraneous and likely confusing features.
Avoiding confusion, would be the motive.And you use the term in a general fashion. Obfuscation alert.
Yes.What concerns me is the word universal.
Would a father have to run background checks on his children before gifting them a rifle or shotguns?
Would an uncle have to have checks run on nephews and nieces before gifting them rifles or shotguns?
Would an older sibling or cousin have to run checks on the person who he/she gifts a gun?
If someone leaves me a firearm in his/her will, would the executor have to run a check on me before turning it over?
Yes.
It's a serious event, it's taken seriously.
... .
No.Have we sunk so low that we think that the only way to have something "taken seriously" is through government intervention?
Yeah, using it wrong was the first clue.Avoiding confusion, would be the motive.
Too late, apparently.
I used it correctly. You are wrong again, as with the strawman bs etc.Yeah, using it wrong was the first clue.
Most such skills can be acquired later in life, at the cost of much greater expenditures of time and effort - but they are not learned the same: the changes in the brain are different, and less stable. Musical instrument skill, for example, has been acquired by adults - but it's not the same brain modifications as the same skill from childhood.Had I not had those early experiences would I have been able to acquire the skill set later in life?
What are you, twelve years into a second childhood?You're never, ever wrong. Got it.
- - - -Why not deal with the communicated facts and argument, easily understood,
Why is that question addressed to me?iceaura
Surely there should at the very least be age limits to the type of gun a child could buy , through out the US ?
long ago
I read:
If you give us a boy of 7 we can make a knight of him, after 18, never.
that being "said"
Age in and of it'self is a poor indicator. Some people assume responsibility early in their lives, while some avoid it as long as possible.
One olympian and medalist started shooting in a 4h youth program when she was 8
And how did the NRA distribute political contributions?