It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Paradox of Applying the Typical 2nd Amendment Argument to the Dallas Shootings

page: 10
49
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 9 2016 @ 05:40 AM
link   
a reply to: gladtobehere


What caused or sparked the American Revolution?

I was really asking more of a question. What did the English do which made the colonialists think that it warranted taking up arms.



"The shot heard round the world."

Amazingly I tried googling and got a miasma that reflects we have (by design, imo) lost the original meaning of those words.

A lot of things all combined led to the start of the American Revolution. The fact is, the first shots fired by "Colonists" were in defense of a cache of arms British soldiers were coming to confiscate.

The progression of arms control by the Crown back then had people only allowed to keep arms in a centralized location. Guess why? So the English could keep track of them, sequestered away from the people for 'security' reasons.

When the "Colonists" got wind they were going to confiscate them, they precede the British, broke into the "armory" passed out the arms and met the British on the Bridge in Lexington. The first shot fired in that 'standoff', the resulting fire fight and deaths of Colonists at the hands of the British military was what sparked the outrage that kicked off the armed conflict between the occupying British Army and all the 'Colonies'.

That first shot, marking the beginning of the American Revolution against foreign powers military occupation became widely spread through out the world press at the time. It was big news, becoming immortalized in a song later, as the "the shot heard round the world".

You wanted historical perspective, there it is. Good luck finding that on the internet, a quick search came up with garbled versions of that.




posted on Jul, 9 2016 @ 05:57 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr


You wanted historical perspective, there it is. Good luck finding that on the internet, a quick search came up with garbled versions of that.


Actually, it's your version that is garbled. The Declaration of Independence mentions things like taxation without representation, but I don't see anything about gun control. The arms the colonists were defending belonged to the militia, and had probably been purchased by the British government to equip the colonists for their role in the Seven Years War (the French and Indian War). The colonists resented having to participate in European wars of hegemony, either by serving or paying for professional soldiers (German mercenaries) through taxation. That is the origin of the Second Amendment: self equipped militias that assemble only in the defense of the community, rather than professional soldiers supported by taxation who are responsible only to the Crown (or central government).



posted on Jul, 9 2016 @ 06:18 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001


but I don't see anything about gun control. The arms the colonists were defending belonged to the militia, and had probably been purchased by the British government...

BS, they belonged to the locals, most of whom hunted for sustenance or used them on their farms to control predation of livestock. They had to 'check them out' from storage to utilize them. Thats the part that gets lost, the British outlawed possession of arms unless authorized, thats why the depot was established in the first place, sort of a gun control without banning them, one of the final outrages suffered by the people and a precursor too what was going to eventually happen, out right confiscation.

But thanks for showing up on que and trying to cover that up. Your use of the word, "probably" shows you are either ignorant or intentionally misinforming others.



posted on Jul, 9 2016 @ 06:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66


That's an interesting observation, but I wonder how relevant it is to the question. I'm not talking about a statistical situation here, I'm talking about the real, heartfelt belief among many Americans that our government (Federal, State and local) is out of control and that it's agents (police and other LEOs) are acting directly against American citizens to unjustly murder them.


That's what the activists want people to think, but that's not what is happening except for extremely rare instances and those officers are tried for murder. The media lies, they propagate false narratives to sell to the public. The purpose of this is to Federalize the police force, thus take more rights away from the citizenry.

Take for example this latest shooting of the man selling CDs. He had a gun, he threatened a homeless man with it who called 911. The police know driving to the scene they are dealing with a dangerous person with an alleged firearm. He is resisting arrest, they taze him twice, he is still fighting with them, reaches into a pocket and the cops can be heard "HE HAS A GUN!", one officer draws his gun and he says "If you move again I'll shoot you!" And the man still tries grabbing the gun from his right pocket.

You will get shot reaching for a gun when dealing with the cops, end of story. The other policeman then removes the gun from the man's pocket after he is shot. Yet here is what the news keeps telling the public..

Cops murder a BLACK man who was selling CDs. The media is assisting the Fed govt in selling the false narrative that local police are corrupt.



posted on Jul, 9 2016 @ 06:26 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr


BS, they belonged to the locals, most of whom hunted for sustenance or used them on their farms to control predation of livestock. They had to 'check them out' from storage to utilize them. Thats the part that gets lost, the British outlawed possession of arms unless authorized, thats why the depot was established in the first place, sort of a gun control without banning them, one of the final outrages suffered by the people and a precursor too what was going to eventually happen, out right confiscation.


Naturally, you will provide a link to the original documents imposing this law, which the colonists forgot to mention in their list of grievances.



posted on Jul, 9 2016 @ 06:53 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

Why? I know you. You'll ridicule the source and dismiss the content as always, including attacking the messenger and carrying the content off page with a bunch off nonsense replies designed to bury the information.

This is for others, last reply to you....

Freedom Outpost, facts and links to original British laws concerning the private possession of firearms leading to confiscation and ultimately, the revolution.


Ultimately, do you know what started America's War for Independence? That's right, it was a tyrannical government that soft peddled "self-defense" while banning firearms and gunpowder.

On April 19, 1775, British and American soldiers exchanged fire in the Massachusetts towns of Lexington and Concord. On the night of April 18, the royal governor of Massachusetts, General Thomas Gage, commanded by King George III to suppress the rebellious Americans, had ordered 700 British soldiers, under Lieutenant Colonel Francis Smith and Marine Major John Pitcairn, to seize the colonists' arms and gunpowder stores in Concord.

At Lexington Green, the British were met by approximately seventy American Minute Men led by John Parker. At the North Bridge in Concord, the British were confronted again, this time by 300 to 400 armed colonists, and were forced to march back to Boston with the Americans firing on them all the way. By the end of the day, the colonists were singing "Yankee Doodle" and the American Revolution had begun.
You can read a timeline of the events that followed here.


(emphasis added)



posted on Jul, 9 2016 @ 07:12 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

That is not exactly what I requested, is it? Black powder was stored in powder houses because it was volatile, not because the Crown wanted to control it. Gage naturally tried to seize the Colonists' powder after the Colonists started to commit acts of vandalism and terror.

It was the British who initially organized the militias; the locals were resistant to the idea. (Fighting the French for King George, remember?) Residents of the growing cities had no use for firearms, so they had to be supplied with them. Naturally, these were stored in armories that doubled both as a powder house and, in some cases, as a safe deposit facility for goods in transit.

Look up "powder house." Learning real history can be fun!

Edit To Add: You still haven't shown anything that supports your claim that the British seized the colonists' arms and forced them to "check them out" if they wanted to go hunting. Primary sources, not NRA bloggers please.
edit on 9-7-2016 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2016 @ 07:19 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

Great post. Would like to say that "the right of the people" as opposed to the right of the state presupposes that this right was not confined to weapons down at the armory. The state itself, the states, have no more of a right than the Feds to keep weapons out of the hands of the people.



posted on Jul, 9 2016 @ 07:22 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001


Edit To Add: You still haven't shown anything that supports your claim that the British seized the colonists' arms and forced them to "check them out" if they wanted to go hunting. Primary sources, not NRA bloggers please.


Circumstantial ad hominem fallacy.



posted on Jul, 9 2016 @ 07:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: DJW001

Great post. Would like to say that "the right of the people" as opposed to the right of the state presupposes that this right was not confined to weapons down at the armory. The state itself, the states, have no more of a right than the Feds to keep weapons out of the hands of the people.



The states operate under their own Constitutions. Remember, the Bill of Rights is a restraining document on the Federal government. To prevent the Fed from trampling on the soverign states, and the people.


edit on 9-7-2016 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2016 @ 07:37 AM
link   
a reply to: NOTurTypical

Had to look that one up.


A Circumstantial ad Hominem is a fallacy in which one attempts to attack a claim by asserting that the person making the claim is making it simply out of self interest.

Thank you



posted on Jul, 9 2016 @ 07:38 AM
link   
a reply to: NOTurTypical



Circumstantial ad hominem fallacy.


No, a request for verifiable sources. Anyone can say "the Colonists were rebelling against gun control." What interprtr needs to do is prove that there was "gun control," and the only way to do that is through primary sources.
edit on 9-7-2016 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2016 @ 07:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: NOTurTypical

Had to look that one up.


A Circumstantial ad Hominem is a fallacy in which one attempts to attack a claim by asserting that the person making the claim is making it simply out of self interest.

Thank you


Here, let me help you in your research. Here is a scholarly review of Colonial firearm laws:

www.tulprpc.org...

Any further discussion on this thread is off topic. Now: why has the NRA not made a statement of support in these Second Amendment cases involving African-Americans?



posted on Jul, 9 2016 @ 07:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: NOTurTypical



Circumstantial ad hominem fallacy.


No, a request for verifiable sources. Anyone can say "the Colonists were rebelling against gun control." What interprtr needs to do is prove that there was "gun control," and the only way to do that is through primary sources.


That's not true, primary sources also contain bias of the author. Nothing is written without a bias. Each source must stand or fall on its own merits.



posted on Jul, 9 2016 @ 07:51 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001


Now: why has the NRA not made a statement of support in these Second Amendment cases involving African-Americans?


What about NRA news commentator Colion Noir's outreach to AA to defend themselves?



posted on Jul, 9 2016 @ 07:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: NOTurTypical

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: NOTurTypical



Circumstantial ad hominem fallacy.


No, a request for verifiable sources. Anyone can say "the Colonists were rebelling against gun control." What interprtr needs to do is prove that there was "gun control," and the only way to do that is through primary sources.


That's not true, primary sources also contain bias of the author. Nothing is written without a bias. Each source must stand or fall on its own merits.


A primary source is the horse's mouth; in this case it would be a proclamation from a representative of the King. If you can't find one, that suggests there wasn't one, and the secondary sources are just plain wrong.



posted on Jul, 9 2016 @ 07:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: DJW001


Now: why has the NRA not made a statement of support in these Second Amendment cases involving African-Americans?


What about NRA news commentator Colion Noir's outreach to AA to defend themselves?


Good for him. Where is the official spokesperson?



posted on Jul, 9 2016 @ 07:58 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

Did Hitler or the Nazi government proclaim the purpose of gun registration was a precursor to gun confiscation? Your statement assumes the primary source is forthright and honest about intentions. History shows that is not true, the primary sources usually propagate pro-state propaganda.



posted on Jul, 9 2016 @ 08:01 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

I'm not sure if the NRA classifies American citizens into racial groups. They are a citizen organization that defends the 2A rights of the all-inclusive "Americans".

Do you know if the NRA subclasses Americans into racial or any other divisions? What I mean, is you might be demanding something that doesn't exist because the NRA doesn't divide African Americans from non-African Americans, and fights for the rights of Americans.


edit on 9-7-2016 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2016 @ 08:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Gryphon66

Is it possible that the NRA views these Second Amendment rights cases as being racial in nature?


I couldn't say. Originally, the matter of race was a reason that many were in favor of strong gun control laws. I alluded to Reagan earlier, I didn't specify I was referring to his time as Governor of CA.

I brought this topic up because I wanted us to consider one of the fundamental PRO gun arguments regarding the right of individuals to take action against the (perceived) illegal actions of government, and thereby to consider the ultimate implication of those arguments.

As you can see, in this discussion, the innate authoritarian and dare I say "statist" bent of many immediately came to the fore. An actual attack on the government (via law enforcement) could ONLY be seen as "rebellion" or "terrorism."

I would submit that is one of the basic paradoxes I wished to examine. I have not been surprised by the outcome.

TR;DR: Yes.




top topics



 
49
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join