Gun Carrying Catholics Armed

  • Thread starter Thread starter Seagull
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The American Revolution was sparked by an attempt at gun confiscation so history is on my side here.

If someone tries to take my property, that puts them in the wrong. Their blood is on their own hands.
 
The American Revolution was sparked by an attempt at gun confiscation so history is on my side here.
No it wasn’t. It was sparked because a bunch of rich guys got upset about paying taxes on luxury goods. Half the people living here didn’t give a rip about the revolution.
If someone tries to take my property, that puts them in the wrong. Their blood is on their own hands.
Even if that property is a kilo of coke? Or some other illegal thing?
I don’t think your innocence is so obvious…
 
Enough poor and middle class guys agreed that their arguments had merit though.

I refer to the initial confrontation that made the Americans realize that it was on. The battles at Lexington and Concord happened because a few men had the courage not to surrender their firearms upon demand.

Drugs should not be illegal. You have no right to tell a free man what he can or cannot put into his own body.
 
Last edited:
Enough poor and middle class guys agreed that their arguments had merit though.
Honestly, that didn’t win the revolution. It really didn’t. The 3500 miles between London and Philly won the revolution.
I refer to the initial confrontation that made the Americans realize that it was on. The battles at Lexington and Concord happened because a few men had the courage not to surrender their firearms upon demand.
Oh, I see your point.

Many would argue that it was underway before that. Lexington/Concord was just the point where the cold war went hot.
 
No it wasn’t. It was sparked because a bunch of rich guys got upset about paying taxes on luxury goods. Half the people living here didn’t give a rip about the revolution.
Maybe you should recognize there were multiple factors providing the spark, and gun control was one of them.
How the British Gun Control Program Precipitated the American Revolution | Tenth Amendment Center
When people think of the causes of the American War for Independence, they think of slogans like “no taxation without representation” or cause célèbre like the Boston Tea Party.

In reality, however, what finally forced the colonials into a shooting war with the British Army in April 1775 was not taxes or even warrant-less searches of homes and their occupation by soldiers, but one of many attempts by the British to disarm Americans as part of an overall gun control program, according to David B. Kopel.

Furthermore, had the American colonies lost their war for independence, the British government intended to strip them of all their guns and place them under the thumb of a permanent standing army.

In his paper titled “How the British Gun Control Program Precipitated the American Revolution,” Kopel claims that various gun control policies by the British following the Boston Tea Party, including a ban on firearm and gunpowder importation, tells us not only the purpose of the Second Amendment, but its relevance within the context of today’s gun control debate.

“The ideology underlying all forms of American resistance to British usurpations and infringements was explicitly premised on the right of self-defense of all inalienable rights,” Kopel writes. “From the self-defense foundation was constructed a political theory in which the people were the masters and government the servant, so that the people have the right to remove a disobedient servant. The philosophy was not novel, but was directly derived from political and legal philosophers such as John Locke, Hugo Grotius, and Edward Coke.”

Kopel writes that two important things underlined the American response to the British policies. One was the practical concept of self-defense, which British disarmament measures was making more difficult. The other, and more relevant concept, was that “Americans made no distinction between self-defense against a lone criminal or against a criminal government.”

Following the Boston Tea Party in December 1773, in which the Sons of Liberty boarded three ships carrying East India Company cargo and dumped forty-six tons of tea ships of tea to prevent its landing, the British government introduced a series of retaliatory measures known as the Intolerable Acts. Among the actions was the closure of Boston’s port, effectively cutting off all trade.

However, Kopel writes, “it was the possibility that the British might deploy the army to enforce them (the Intolerable Acts) that primed many colonists for armed resistance.”
 
If God disagrees with my assessment, that will be a matter between myself and Him.
 
40.png
Vonsalza:
No it wasn’t. It was sparked because a bunch of rich guys got upset about paying taxes on luxury goods. Half the people living here didn’t give a rip about the revolution.
Maybe you should recognize there were multiple factors providing the spark, and gun control was one of them.
I do. But I also recognize that the majority of it was driven by continental elites balking under the suzerainty of English elites.

Rich people having a spat and hiring poor people to fight it out… As ancient as “history”.
 
There is a pretty deep cultural divide here in the United States. Another attempt at gun confiscation could just as easily be another flashpoint.
 
Rich people having a spat and hiring poor people to fight it out… As ancient as “history”.
The poor people weren’t being paid that much to resist (if anything at all), it was far more than a spat among the wealthy.
 
40.png
Vonsalza:
Rich people having a spat and hiring poor people to fight it out… As ancient as “history”.
The poor people weren’t being paid that much to resist…
That was the brilliant selling point envisioned by the continental elites. IF they won, soldiers got land grants (I actually own a part of the grant given to an ancestor of mine).

If they lost? No need to pay.

Brilliant, right?
 
Last edited:
High capacity semiautomatic rifles are not a bad idea when Black Lives Matter or Anti-Fa decides to riot in the neighborhood.

One would hope however that non-whites would realize that the right to self-defense is good for any honest person.
 
Last edited:
High capacity semiautomatic rifles are not a bad idea when Black Lives Matter decides to riot in the neighborhood.
Yes they are and anyone who sticks around when a situation like that seems imminent is a perfect fool.
One would hope however that non-whites would realize that the right to self-defense is good for any honest person.
A better solution is to avoid the violence.
Either way, this isn’t a common enough situation to really merit a rational objection, SST…
 
Last edited:
Yes they are and anyone who sticks around when a situation like that seems imminent is a perfect fool
That is where we differ. I am ready to stand my ground in the face of the mob. I would rather die on my feet than live on my knees
 
40.png
Vonsalza:
Yes they are and anyone who sticks around when a situation like that seems imminent is a perfect fool
That is where we differ. I am ready to stand my ground in the face of the mob. I would rather die on my feet than live on my knees
I’d rather bug out when a riot seems likely and file an insurance claim when it’s over…
 
Some things cannot be replaced with money. Even if they can, I see no reason to forfeit the streets to the bad guys.
 
In regards to your remark about avoiding violence, the best way to avoid it is not to initiate it.
 
There are some situations where you might not be able to retreat to a “safer” location. I don’t care what “organization” or group it is, in this age of being able to to get a decent group of people together quickly, you might find your little corner of the world blocked in by people protesting about who knows what fairly quickly.

Interestingly, not a single one of my “high capacity” magazines has ever jumped up and killed anybody.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top