(October 4, 2017 at 11:03 am)Khemikal Wrote: They insisted that the objections of the rebellious colonists were unfounded..and truth be told, they were.

To which objections do you refer, and why would you consider them unfounded?

The objections used to propagandize and militarize the public.  There's no need to leave the gunpowder confiscation for an example.  The colonists had no legal right to the gunpowder stored in colonial magazines.  The colonial government was not confiscating weapons (or powder) from personal use at the time either...though, obviously, the rebels were capable of working up the public into a row as if they did and were.  

On a broader stage, the famous "taxation without representation" takes it's place in the history of war propaganda....not a sober assessment of truth.  It's always good to remember that our founding fathers were propagandists, first and foremost...and whatever else second to that.  It was a necessity of their position and their goals.

They wrote some of that propaganda into the constitution, but, as I mentioned earlier, not all of it (some would be inconvenient to them as an authority for the same reason it had been useful to them as an insurgency.  The hole licking of local militias was a necessity of position just as the propagandizing over gunpowder, guns, and taxes was.  We've since decided that militias are a fundamentally dumb idea.  Nothing about the regulation of supply of those militias expressed any level headed thinking on the part of the fathers in what they wrote -or- what they meant.  They were beholden to the militia, and to an ideological fraud of the militia as a concept.  They didn't like the militia, or the public having access to guns anymore than the previous colonial authority.  

I'm not looking to dispute or confirm the ideological truth or purity of any current political position, simply offering a reminder that the founding fathers were not and could not be authoritative into perpetuity, and that their comments on guns and militias and any right of arms was more an expression of the then current political and military realities than any level headed policy that we should be informed by today.

The founding fathers didn't know shit about assault rifles.  They could not see the future.  Their document creates our current problem with guns in ways entirely unrelated to the second amendment.  Whatever they meant by a militia is irrelevant to that.  These people, and whatever they meant by -anything- are moot point.  It's a living document.

---

TLDR version....it's pointless for anyone on any side of this issue to point to what they think the founding fathers meant as though it were the gospel of guns according to the prophets of americana.  As a cynic, and as someone who wants to see better enforcement of gun regs (so I can keep popping off rounds at paper plates without becoming an enemy of the state by default, lol)..I'd love to see the sane amongst us stop letting the nutters control the narrative. Any time the nutters can get us to waste on this point, is time that we aren't spending working towards the common goal.

The Newburgh Conspiracy was a bigger threat to the nascent United States than any government sneakiness.

LOL< probably, and if it had happened then the continental authorities would have been felating the militia and random Josephs with guns even harder.

The constitution did not emerge in a vacuum.  It was the successor to the Articles of Confederation, Section 6 of which notes:

Quote:No vessel of war shall be kept up in time of peace by any State, except such number only, as shall be deemed necessary by the United States in Congress assembled, for the defense of such State, or its trade; nor shall any body of forces be kept up by any State in time of peace, except such number only, as in the judgement of the United States in Congress assembled, shall be deemed requisite to garrison the forts necessary for the defense of such State; but every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of filed pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.

It spells out in much greater detail what the late 18th century concept of a well-regulated militia meant.  That the Founding Fathers did not see fit to repeat the admonition is yet one more example of how they fucked things up.

-and now we have a massive (and professional) standing military.  So much for not upkeeping vessels of war in time of peace, eh? 

(October 4, 2017 at 12:42 pm)Minimalist Wrote: The constitution did not emerge in a vacuum.  It was the successor to the Articles of Confederation, Section 6 of which notes:

Quote:No vessel of war shall be kept up in time of peace by any State, except such number only, as shall be deemed necessary by the United States in Congress assembled, for the defense of such State, or its trade; nor shall any body of forces be kept up by any State in time of peace, except such number only, as in the judgement of the United States in Congress assembled, shall be deemed requisite to garrison the forts necessary for the defense of such State; but every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of filed pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.

It spells out in much greater detail what the late 18th century concept of a well-regulated militia meant.  That the Founding Fathers did not see fit to repeat the admonition is yet one more example of how they fucked things up.

Yerp. 

The whole amendment is a sham, really.  The people who wrote it knew that militias were shit, and that they didn't even remotely satisfy any necessity of defense. They were pandering in ink to what they all knew was a lie. Let;s dissolve this army, not pay the soldiers, and when they complain lets officially enable the spread of the well received myth that the militia won it for us.

-and here we are today, lelz.

(October 4, 2017 at 12:13 pm)Khemikal Wrote: The colonists had no legal right to the gunpowder stored in colonial magazines.

Are you referring to the Powder Alarm? There were several kerfuffles over gunpowder and weapons. Each had its own unique circumstances. In Massachusetts, Gage was a prick, but they did indeed use propaganda to fire people up after he decided to get tight-fisted with powder stores. In the end, legal right to anything doesn't really have bearing, though. The entire fight was over the perceived immorality of deciding laws for a people who were't represented within the governing body, particularly given that the United States had distinctly different needs from Britain. Their objections stemmed from long before powder became the issue of the day.

Quote:The colonial government was not confiscating weapons (or powder) from personal use at the time either...though, obviously, the rebels were capable of working up the public into a row as if they did and were. 

They knew that it was the plan, which is what led to Lexington and Concord. They knew it was important to keep a hand on it. They were right. By the time the misnamed Battle of Bunker Hill occurred, they were so low on ammunition that they had to give up Breed's Hill, in spite of the fact that they had inflicted many more casualties than the redcoats. Sure, the redcoats meant to confiscate the stuff peacefully before the war began, but, again, these weren't really the initial objections. This came after many years of taxation and property issues.

Quote:On a broader stage, the famous "taxation without representation" takes it's place in the history of war propaganda....not a sober assessment of truth.

Hmmm, the words "no taxation without representation" as used in the decades leading up to the American Revolution were initially used by James Otis, an intellectual who could hardly be counted among the time's propagandists. He was outspoken, which led to him nearly being beaten to death by a tax collector or soldier in the street. However, I'd challenge you to read anything he wrote for the paper or accounts of his lengthy courtroom diatribes and find lies used to stir people up. The colonists were indeed being taxed without representation by Parliament. The Intolerable Acts did even worse. It was absolutely true that there were no colonists in Parliament. Moreover, Parliament was reducing the ability for local governments to convene, even replacing colonial officials with the "king's men," and restricting public gatherings.

Quote:It's always good to remember that our founding fathers were propagandists, first and foremost...and whatever else second to that.  It was a necessity of their position and their goals.

I disagree that propaganda was first and foremost at all.

My points is that the objections that led to the unrest before the American Revolution occurred were more often founded than not. They were very well laid out by keener minds than mine and the "propagandists" who founded the nation. You can read the words right out of their mouths for years, if you choose. I did. I don't disagree that some, such as Samuel Adams (massacre, my ass), were not averse to dramatizing anything to rally people for the cause, but to act as if the rebellion was pure propaganda is nonsense.

(October 4, 2017 at 12:42 pm)Minimalist Wrote: The constitution did not emerge in a vacuum.  It was the successor to the Articles of Confederation, Section 6 of which notes:

Quote:No vessel of war shall be kept up in time of peace by any State, except such number only, as shall be deemed necessary by the United States in Congress assembled, for the defense of such State, or its trade; nor shall any body of forces be kept up by any State in time of peace, except such number only, as in the judgement of the United States in Congress assembled, shall be deemed requisite to garrison the forts necessary for the defense of such State; but every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of filed pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.

It spells out in much greater detail what the late 18th century concept of a well-regulated militia meant.  That the Founding Fathers did not see fit to repeat the admonition is yet one more example of how they fucked things up.

I wouldn't say the founders fucked everything up. But just like everything else in life, the future can pop up with things you have no way to consider at the time.

I don't think they had anyway of knowing AR15s and even banana clips for handguns would exist. But, there were laws back then regulating Musket size and musket ball size, and the word "militia" was not used even back then to allow some sicko with no record to shoot concert goers like fish in a barrel. 

Laws have to change with changing technology and changing demographics and population size. Even without the issue of firearms, our government would not be able to function with only 13 congressmen today when we have 50 states.

You might argue if the founders were alive today, some might side with the right, but it would be foolish to claim all of them would. Washington himself got the Whiskey Rebellion to back off by using threat of "Militia". So the intent was not so individuals could play Rambo, but for the protection of the commonwealth. Thus "well regulated". I don't see how a disturbed nut being allowed to have 20+ high powered weapons of war in a hotel room constitutes "well regulated."

If we expect our law enforcement and military to be vetted to insure nuts don't end up in those positions, I fail to see how a civilian can do better than a trained government employee.