Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-17-2019 10:59 AM
35 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 853,905 Year: 8,941/19,786 Month: 1,363/2,119 Week: 123/576 Day: 24/99 Hour: 8/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
56
...
15NextFF
Author Topic:   Gun Control & 2nd Amendment
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5655
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006


Message 46 of 218 (550644)
03-16-2010 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Theodoric
03-16-2010 8:05 PM


Re: Bogus quotes
You stated(if you want me to go back to the original message I will) that Adams and Washington would have supported Jeffersons statement about a revolution every 20 years.

Theo, give me a break. The "20 year" commentary is obvious hyperbole. Nobody has a revolution as a 20-year anniversary. I obviously thought you were referring to revolutions in general. The answer is, yes, if a revolution is necessary then I applaud it. If it is not necessary, then there is no reason for one.

You're splitting hairs.

You are now backpedaling and misrepresenting my response. I did not say anything about them being against the tight to bear arms. I was showing that your assertion was a load of crock.

I presented an argument showing why it was crock. Now you claim you didn't mean what you said? Maybe you should think before you hit that submit button.

Thus far you have misconstrued nearly everything I said, trying to get me to say one thing and supplying your own meaning to it. That's your failing, not mine.

Or are you saying Adams and Washington thought the US should have a revolution in some indeterminate time in the future

Theo, have you ever heard of the Revolutionary War??? They stand for revolution when it is necessary, not just for shits and giggles. You're making a mountain out of a molehill.

I'd love to see your sources on this. Maybe you should just admit it is something you pulled out of your ass?

Listen Theo, I have stated in no uncertain terms that I believe all the founding fathers stand for armed revolution in one form or another for the sole fact that they fought and supported, in one capacity or another, a revolution against the, then, strongest military in the world. You apparently want me to unilaterally say that they all want to massacre people for the sake of massacre.

Secondly, again, when I was wrong about something I not only admitted it, but thanked you for it. So, why don't you stop being hostile and get to what you really want to say. Because as best I can tell, you just want to argue with me for the sake of arguing.

Thirdly, what is your point? Where are you going with this? What are your personal feelings on the topic?

Classic Hyro. When caught throwing bs around you change the argument. Deflect and attack the person you are debating with. Poor form, poor form.

You keep trying to put words in my mouth. You have yet to answer a direct question and you say I'm using poor form?

You care to back your statements about Adams and Washington or not?

But what do we mean by the American Revolution? Do we mean the American war? The Revolution was effected before the war commenced. The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people; a change in their religious sentiments, of their duties and obligations...This radical change in the principles, opinions, sentiments, and affections of the people was the real American Revolution." -- John Adams, letter to H. Niles, February 13, 1818

"I give my signature to many Bills with which my Judgment is at variance.... From the Nature of the Constitution, I must approve all parts of a Bill, or reject it in total. To do the latter can only be Justified upon the clear and obvious grounds of propriety; and I never had such confidence in my own faculty of judging as to be over tenacious of the opinions I may have imbibed in doubtful cases." -- George Washington, letter to Edmund Pendleton, September 23, 1793

Washington was the General of the Revolution, whom was appointed by Adams. That they not only fought a bloody war for so long, but also commanded it, they clearly felt the necessity so great for revolution, that they did not abandon the hope.


"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston
This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Theodoric, posted 03-16-2010 8:05 PM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Theodoric, posted 03-16-2010 10:02 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6264
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 47 of 218 (550645)
03-16-2010 10:02 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Hyroglyphx
03-16-2010 9:46 PM


Re: Bogus quotes
This is not at all what you original comment suggested.

Of course we all knew they were in support ofyou the revolutionary war. You clearly stated that they believed that another revolution would be necessary in the future of the United States. I have repeatedly asked you to provide evidence that they believed future revolutions would be necessary.

As of yet you have not supported this assertion. All you have done is defelect the argument and try to say you said something else.

First quote
"God forbid we should ever be 20. years without such a rebellion. The people can not be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independant 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half for each state. What country ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure. Our Convention has been too much impressed by the insurrection of Massachusets: and in the spur of the moment they are setting up a kite to keep the hen yard in order. I hope in god this article will be rectified before the new constitution is accepted." - Thomas Jefferson

Message 38

Theodoric writes:

Do you think John Adams and George Washington would support this view?

Your response
Message 41

Hyro writes:

Based on what is historically known of them, yes.

So what historically shows that they thought we needed regular revolutions?


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-16-2010 9:46 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-17-2010 7:25 AM Theodoric has responded

    
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5655
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006


(1)
Message 48 of 218 (550671)
03-17-2010 7:25 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Theodoric
03-16-2010 10:02 PM


Re: Bogus quotes
You clearly stated that they believed that another revolution would be necessary in the future of the United States.

Bullshit. Quote me saying that all three presidents believed that another revolution would be necessary in the future of the U.S. You are full of shit. You've tried to manipulate the conversation at every turn instead of actually reading what I wrote.

I have repeatedly asked you to provide evidence that they believed future revolutions would be necessary.

As of yet you have not supported this assertion. All you have done is defelect the argument and try to say you said something else.

All YOU have done is try and pigeonhole me in to saying something I never intended. I never fucking said anything like that and you know it. You're just trying to manipulate the conversation by at first being vague and then getting more detailed as you go to cover up the fact that you know you were vague to begin, which obviously makes it is easy to misconstrue.

"Do you think Adams and Washington would support that view." Naturally since we are discussing revolutions, they would support based on historical precedence. But you assumed I would automatically know that you meant "regular revolutions" or "20-year revolutions," when you never made that clear at all!!!

You've tried to get me to say that I want to overthrow the government and pigeonhole me in to saying something I never said and/or never intended.

Too much time has been spent on explaining this to you. So, fuck it. I'm not gonna jump through your hoops.


"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston
This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Theodoric, posted 03-16-2010 10:02 PM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Theodoric, posted 03-17-2010 8:56 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6264
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 49 of 218 (550676)
03-17-2010 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Hyroglyphx
03-17-2010 7:25 AM


Re: Bogus quotes
Well it would be silly of me to question whether Washington and Adams supported their own revolution. Don't you think? Do you have any idea what these two thought about the French revolution? You might want to do some research on it.
[ABE]They also were not what one would call firebrand revolutionaries. Until the fateful day in Lexington and Concord both hoped for an accommodation with the crown. Even after the hostilities commenced there was a hope to come to a peace and still remain in the empire. The idea of a free and independent country was something that slowly came forward. It was almost a 1 1/2 years between start of hostilities and The Declaration of Independence(which is not a United States of America document and has no legal standing)[/ABE]

Well this conversation went the way I expected. Instead of clarifying what you said or meant you instead waste a number of posts trying to backtrack. Why didn't you just explain what you intended. Instead you refuse to acknowledge what you said was bs.

Then you turn things around and swear at me and accuse me of manipulating the conversation. All I have been doing is trying to clarify what you meant.

It could have been as simple as this.

Hyro says.
"No, I do not believe that John Adams and George Washington thought that the United States of America should go through regular revolutions."

Also, you never even acknowledged my point that the Jefferson quote came before the founding of the United States of America. Therefore, don't you think that maybe Jefferson might have tempered his views(as history showed he did) a little after the adoption of the Constitution .

Finally, you have not clearly explained what the quote has to do with modern day gun rights. All you have done is made some vague comments about needing to protect yourself from the government.

In this country we have a ballot box. That is something that did not exist for the common man at that time. Don't you think political action and voting would be more effective than an armed rabble?

I see you have no desire to actually debate this issue. You just want to proselytize. Then when people question your unfounded assertions or ask for a clarification you respond with vitriol and accusations.

I have tried debating you in the past. I see you have the same modus operandi as you did before. I probably will not debate you directly in the future, but when you spout some asinine argument, misquote or misrepresent a quote, I will respond and questione you.

Have a good day

Edited by Theodoric, : More points


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-17-2010 7:25 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

    
Peepul
Member (Idle past 3181 days)
Posts: 206
Joined: 03-13-2009


Message 50 of 218 (550677)
03-17-2010 9:11 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Hyroglyphx
03-15-2010 1:46 PM


Re: Guns don't make you safer.
I guess the key question is - what are the reasons why the US homicide rate is so high relative to other countries? Instead of arguing for or against guns on principle, that's the question that needs answering, and the root causes fixing.

As an outsider (a UK person) it's clear the US discussion about guns touches a deep cultural nerve, one that doesn't exist here. It's tied up with the question of individual freedom in a way that isn't the case in the UK.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-15-2010 1:46 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Taq, posted 03-17-2010 9:51 AM Peepul has not yet responded
 Message 61 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-17-2010 1:40 PM Peepul has not yet responded

    
Shield
Member (Idle past 1026 days)
Posts: 482
Joined: 01-29-2008


Message 51 of 218 (550678)
03-17-2010 9:17 AM


I dont get you americans
I dont get you americans... do you really need Bear Arms that badly?In most of the civilized world, we get by with puny human arms.

Edited by rbp, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by RAZD, posted 03-17-2010 1:03 PM Shield has acknowledged this reply
 Message 62 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-17-2010 1:43 PM Shield has not yet responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 7867
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.3


(1)
Message 52 of 218 (550680)
03-17-2010 9:51 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Peepul
03-17-2010 9:11 AM


Re: Guns don't make you safer.
As an outsider (a UK person) it's clear the US discussion about guns touches a deep cultural nerve, one that doesn't exist here. It's tied up with the question of individual freedom in a way that isn't the case in the UK.

I think the answer can be found in our history. From the very start colonists needed "protection" from indigenous populations, and it remained that way until the late 1800's. For roughly 250 years those on the fringes of settlements were under constant threat.

My father became interested in our family history a while back. He actually found journals written by distant relatives as they crossed the great plains towards Kansas. There were more than one story of indian attacks. Many of my distant family were killed by indians making the move west. The threat from fellow americans was just as great during both the gold rush and cattle wars of the mid 1800's. There were vast stretches of land with no police, no government presence. You literally settled things yourself, and it didn't always turn out well.

On top of this, you also had immigrants who had emigrated from very tough conditions. A good example is the Scotch-Irish that settled in the hill country of West Virginia. These were people of Scottish descent who had been given land in Ireland in an attempt to gain a foothold in Ireland. They were hated by the Irish for generations and forced out of Ireland. They couldn't go back to Scotland and so they came here. Since then they have always been dispropotionately poor with little promise outside of coal mining. This has led to a community that is fiercly independent. Well, I don't know if independent is the right word here, it's tough to explain.

In the end, the real difference here is the difference in history.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Peepul, posted 03-17-2010 9:11 AM Peepul has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by dronestar, posted 03-17-2010 10:48 AM Taq has responded

  
dronestar
Member (Idle past 503 days)
Posts: 1379
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


Message 53 of 218 (550685)
03-17-2010 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by Taq
03-17-2010 9:51 AM


Re: Guns don't make you safer.
From the very start colonists needed "protection" from indigenous populations,

There were more than one story of indian attacks. Many of my distant family were killed by indians making the move west.

Umm, something about your phrasing of words bothers me. But it SEEMS you might have it backwards:

If your/my/others ancestors didn't encroach/trespass/steal land from the indians, then maybe the indians wouldn't have attacked.

Thus, gun ownership would'n't have been AS important as you make it sound.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Taq, posted 03-17-2010 9:51 AM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Taq, posted 03-17-2010 10:53 AM dronestar has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7867
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 54 of 218 (550687)
03-17-2010 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by dronestar
03-17-2010 10:48 AM


Re: Guns don't make you safer.
Umm, something about your phrasing of words bothers me. But it SEEMS you might have it backwards:

If your/my/others ancestors didn't encroach/trespass/steal land from the indians, then maybe the indians wouldn't have attacked.

The quotes around protection were meant to imply sarcasm. Sorry if that didn't come across.

If the early colonists were not armed there probably wouldn't be europeans here now. However, europeans could have made a bundle selling guns to warring native americans so we would probably still be talking about guns in america.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by dronestar, posted 03-17-2010 10:48 AM dronestar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by dronestar, posted 03-17-2010 11:03 AM Taq has responded

  
dronestar
Member (Idle past 503 days)
Posts: 1379
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


Message 55 of 218 (550691)
03-17-2010 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by Taq
03-17-2010 10:53 AM


Re: Guns don't make you safer.
The quotes around protection were meant to imply sarcasm

I caught the quotes, but when you belabored the point in the second paragraph you belied the sarcasm. Which confused me.

If the early colonists were not armed there probably wouldn't be europeans here now.

Again, when you invade another territory/nation, it makes sense to bring weapons. That was the mentality of violent people who colonized the new world. I think we agree here, yes?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Taq, posted 03-17-2010 10:53 AM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Taq, posted 03-17-2010 11:09 AM dronestar has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7867
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 56 of 218 (550694)
03-17-2010 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by dronestar
03-17-2010 11:03 AM


Re: Guns don't make you safer.
Again, when you invade another territory/nation, it makes sense to bring weapons. That was the mentality of violent people who colonized the new world. I think we agree here, yes?

Yes. It may also explain why there is a different mentality between Europeans and Americans when it comes to guns.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by dronestar, posted 03-17-2010 11:03 AM dronestar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by dronestar, posted 03-17-2010 11:24 AM Taq has responded

  
dronestar
Member (Idle past 503 days)
Posts: 1379
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


Message 57 of 218 (550696)
03-17-2010 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by Taq
03-17-2010 11:09 AM


Re: Guns don't make you safer.
It may also explain why there is a different mentality between Europeans and Americans when it comes to guns.

Sorry, but perhaps I am a little dense this morning. I need you to expand your assertion . . .

Are you saying that the early American colonists who came from Europe were particularly more violent than other non-invading Europeans. And because they were ALREADY pre-disposed to violence, it then nurtured a violent american society?

Can we compare or contrast this notion to Australia? They were particularly settled by violent European criminals. What type of society does australia have now, compared to the USA? Is this a fair comparison?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Taq, posted 03-17-2010 11:09 AM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Taq, posted 03-17-2010 12:15 PM dronestar has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7867
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 58 of 218 (550702)
03-17-2010 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by dronestar
03-17-2010 11:24 AM


Re: Guns don't make you safer.
Are you saying that the early American colonists who came from Europe were particularly more violent than other non-invading Europeans. And because they were ALREADY pre-disposed to violence, it then nurtured a violent american society?

What I am saying is that modern American views of gun ownership has been strongly influenced by American history. I am not saying that the Europeans who came to America were more violent than those who stayed in Europe. This history includes:

1. a 250 year guerilla war between invading Europeans and the indigenous population.

2. a lack of police and government presence in much of the new frontiers leading to unfettered violence between europeans.

Guns were truly necessary for home security at one time from very real threats. I don't think this is true of the UK during the same time period.

Can we compare or contrast this notion to Australia? They were particularly settled by violent European criminals. What type of society does australia have now, compared to the USA? Is this a fair comparison?

I really don't know what the Aussie attitude is towards guns. Anyone want to comment?

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by dronestar, posted 03-17-2010 11:24 AM dronestar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by dronestar, posted 03-17-2010 12:40 PM Taq has not yet responded
 Message 63 by Theodoric, posted 03-17-2010 5:28 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
dronestar
Member (Idle past 503 days)
Posts: 1379
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


Message 59 of 218 (550703)
03-17-2010 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Taq
03-17-2010 12:15 PM


Any Aussies out there?
Hey Taq,

I am not saying that the Europeans who came to America were more violent than those who stayed in Europe.

Hmm, but can this statement be supported? Because it SEEMS the contrary evidence that the reason America had a violent BEGINNING (and then a nurtured violent history) COULD be wholly explained via violent conquerring Europeans.

Your two points MIGHT ALSO be applied to Australian history, and thus MIGHT be helpful in supporting/disproving American love of guns/violence stems mainly from violent conquerring Europeans. The gun-control topic MAY BE/probably is more complex, but I find this particular angle interesting.

I am hardly an Australian historian, so it would be cool if an Australian or Australian history-buff could help.

Edited by dronester, : changed message title


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Taq, posted 03-17-2010 12:15 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19869
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 60 of 218 (550709)
03-17-2010 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Shield
03-17-2010 9:17 AM


Re: I dont get you americans
I prefer the right to bare arms, and related parts ...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Shield, posted 03-17-2010 9:17 AM Shield has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Theodoric, posted 03-17-2010 5:30 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Prev123
4
56
...
15NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019