(October 5, 2017 at 3:39 pm)Shell B Wrote: The NRA has actually come out today and supported legislation on the enhancements the Vegas shooter used to make his long guns fully auto. I'm surprised, and I'll agree with you before you say it's not enough. Still, it's something. Something surprising.

They still protect the flooded market.

It never makes the news when they do rarely say something sane. Like when the Pulse shooting happened nobody mentioned that the normally bat shit insane Wayne La Pee dipshit actually agreed that firearms should not be allowed in bars.

It is a start. 

I think the key for both sides is simple. 

If we all agree less firearm deaths is better. And I don't see how any sane person would or should argue with that, my only point is that what the right wants isn't leading to less injury and death.

If their decades of advocacy worked we wouldn't see all the firearm death repeat in the news cycle day after day.

I'm not sure about other areas, but firearms aren't allowed in bars anywhere I've lived. My ex spent a night locked up on post because he's an idiot and brought a gun to a bar. He then used the butt of it to break the window to our car because he locked the keys inside, all while a cop watched him from across the road. In hindsight, the divorce papers should've been filed the next morning.

(October 5, 2017 at 3:59 pm)Shell B Wrote: I'm not sure about other areas, but firearms aren't allowed in bars anywhere I've lived. My ex spent a night locked up on post because he's an idiot and brought a gun to a bar. He then used the butt of it to break the window to our car because he locked the keys inside, all while a cop watched him from across the road. In hindsight, the divorce papers should've been filed the next morning.

Yea but back when Pulse happened, I saw many supporters of the profit lobby, not the NRA itself but their gullible minions claiming that if the bar had been full of guns .....

I am not kidding, if the NRA came out tomorrow, and said, we need to listen to the left, because of all the bullshit they sell, it would be like Tillerson calling 45 a moron, he is, but it would not matter. 

The NRA has done so much damage with it's all or nothing bullshit, whenever they do have a rare moment of sanity, they have frothed up the orange Buggs Bunny monster(their base) it would be like trying to put a rabid pit bull back on a leash.

Kinda like even if someone in Un's family realizes they are bat shit insane, they end up like an uncle who says something remotely sane.

While Wayne said the right thing, about not allowing guns in bars, he has spent more time promoting no rules and sell more to the point even his supporters would turn on him.

More guns, that always makes things better. Those guns have never been in a close-quarters gun fight.

(October 5, 2017 at 10:51 am)Shell B Wrote: The American Revolution started in 1775. What happened by 1780 and in the states is a little moot. We're talking about the colonies. Besides, they, and I, were talking about Parliament. Local governments, which were severely restricted in the decade before 1775 in at least the Massachusetts Bay Colony, wouldn't have had a say in Parliament. Puerto Rico is a good example of how the colonies were treated. They could have local government, but no representation in the "federal" governing body. Therefore, any federal (or Parliamentary) taxes were given to them without any of their own say in the matter. That's what gave rise to "no taxation without representation." If you understand it in context, it makes perfect sense.

Like I already told you, I'm not commenting upon whether or not I agree...or making any arguments as to whether or not "it makes sense".   I said it was a dubious slogan, and it was.  Propaganda is always about spinning some core truth.   The taxes a boston merchant paid on tea didn't mean a damned thing the masses who could buy cheaper tea from the EIC.  The taxes paid by colonists were lower than the taxes paid by mainlanders.  Those same people, who did rebel, would then be disenfrachised further, and their taxes would be raised...by their new government.

Quote:That's an oversimplification. They didn't spell out who had a right to vote and say citizens had a right to vote, but they definitely left it as an issue of each state. This was perfectly in keeping with the majority's hope to reduce the power of the federal government. I don't necessarily agree with it, given that states obviously didn't extend the voting process to everyone, but it wasn't as if the federal government was like, "Hey, guys, how do we keep peasants from voting?" The states did that, and still do.

Indeed they did, and do.  I doubt that either of us would agree that stripping even more people of the vote was or is aimed at limiting the power of the federal government........ though I'm sure they didn't want the federal government to insist that some people™ had such a right.  

They didn't want blacks, catholics, jews, quakers, or women to vote.  

Today, when we hear nutter states make the "states rights" case for voter disenfrachisement..we realize that they are speaking duplicitously.  Why would we imagine that the same argument applied to the same end then.....would be any different?  

Quote:If you mean the rebel government that wrote the Articles of the Confederation and The Declaration of Independence, sure.   If you mean that most of the officials were officials in some capacity under the crown, that's not true. Some of them were to some degree. Samuel Adams was a failed tax collector. Most of them were merchants, property owners, editors and other professionals. A large number of colonial officials were loyal to Britain or were appointed by Britain. Therefore, they returned to Britain. Even Benjamin Franklin's son, a governor in New Jersey, was a loyalist. He left the new country and despised his father.

This isn't believing some thinkers view on how things went down. These are the facts. There's mountains of evidence.

........? 

Indeed there is, and the experience of the previously colonial officials is pointed to as a contributing factor in the early american states stability - contrasted with what usually happens after a rebellion.  Sure, they needed more people..but those merchants, property owners, editors and other professionals largely held the -same- opinions on governance as any disgusted british loyalist who went home.  

Quote:You have to make sense if you're going to be sarcastic.  

So, you're saying militia's cheap, yay. Need to get people to believe it, but heroes might not have legs and lack credibility. We don't have to compensate them. How do we make sense of pro militia amendments? See, the founders were first and foremost propagandists.

I'm sorry, I assumed that you had a level of familiarity with the revolutionary war that I shouldn't have, and I can see why that wouldn't make any sense in a vacuum. In my defense, lol...it wasn't aimed directly at you.

Quote:The above is literally how your post reads to me. What does the militia being paid very little (they did cost more than a dime because they were quickly absorbed into the newly-formed Continental Army) and the Bill of Rights have to do with your former statements regarding propaganda?

So, there was a huge issue regarding compensation at the birth of our nation.  Sama alluded to it previously.  It got as far as a planned and panned military coup.  The militia was not, itself, regarded kindly by the people who wrote the second amendment.  Far from thinking that it was necessary for a free state to ensure it's yada yada yada..they considered the militia to be a militarily useless armed rabble.  It was.  They nevertheless wrote, into our funding document, a self serving lie about militias.  They also discredited those who sought compensation by raising the spectre of the militia volunteer.  Up to and including heroes of our revolution who we then sought to leave nameless.

The founding fathers were propagandists. Yes, they were many other things. Yes, I think that they were free thinkers..maybe not -actually- as free as they came back then..but I get the gist. I;m not pointing it out as criticism. Without propaganda they could have never succeeded. They had to find ways to make their own aims the aims of many, many more people who generally had no common interest or even had interests in contradiction.

(October 5, 2017 at 4:28 pm)Khemikal Wrote: Like I already told you, I'm not commenting upon whether or not I agree...or making any arguments as to whether or not "it makes sense". 

Nor am I.

Quote:I said it was a dubious slogan, and it was.

You still can't tell me why. That's all I'm asking. Were the colonists represented in Parliament? I already know the answer is no, so it wasn't a dubious slogan at all.

Quote:The taxes paid by colonists were lower than the taxes paid by mainlanders.  Those same people, who did rebel, would then be disenfrachised further, and their taxes would be raised...by their new government.

If you've done reading on the topic, you'll know that they were aware they weren't being taxed as much. They were pissed that they didn't get a say in what was taxed, where, when and how much.

Quote:Today, when we hear nutter states make the "states rights" case for voter disenfrachisement..we realize that they are speaking duplicitously.  Why would we imagine that the same argument applied to the same end then.....would be any different? 

That's not the point. Your original post made it seem as if there was no voting mentioned at all in the original Constitution. It was mentioned in virtually every clause.

Quote:Indeed there is, and the experience of the previously colonial officials is pointed to as a contributing factor in the early american states stability - contrasted with what usually happens after a rebellion.  Sure, they needed more people..but those merchants, property owners, editors and other professionals largely held the -same- opinions on governance as any disgusted british loyalist who went home.  

Huh? You said it was largely the same government. Now you're saying they just had the same ideas.

Quote:I'm sorry, I assumed that you had a level of familiarity with the revolutionary war that I shouldn't have, and I can see why that wouldn;t make any sense in a vacuum.

Your first assumption was correct. I've been an American Revolution (particularly in Boston) researcher and columnist for the past decade. I think the problem is you assume you're more familiar with it than you are.

Quote:So, there was a huge issue regarding compensation at the birth of our nation.  Sama alluded to it previously.  It got as far as a planned and panned military coup.  The militia was not, itself, regarded kindly by the people who wrote the second amendment.  Far from thinking that it was necessary for a free state to ensure it's yada yada yada..they considered the militia to be a militarily useless armed rabble.  It was.  They nevertheless wrote, into our funding document, a self serving lie about militias.  They also discredited those who sought compensation by raising the spectre of the militia volunteer.  Up to and including heroes of our revolution who we then sought to leave nameless.

The founding fathers were propagandists.  Yes, they were many other things.  Yes, I think that they were free thinkers..maybe not -actually- as free as they came back then..but I get the gist.  I;m not pointing it out as criticism.  Without propaganda they could have never succeeded.  They had to find ways to make their own aims the aims of many, many more people who generally had no common interest.

What you're talking about in paragraph 2 does not follow from paragraph 1. This is where you're losing me. We're talking about pre-Constitution presumed propaganda. I disagree that "no taxation without representation" was propaganda. I also disagree that the founding fathers were "first and foremost" propagandists. There were only a handful of them who could be called propagandists to any large degree. If you had cited the Boston Massacre as an example of propaganda, I'd have agreed, but you chose a fairly honest quote from James Otis (who likely heard it before then, but who popularized it for the AR).

Back on topic: http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?col...recNum=732

(October 5, 2017 at 3:59 pm)Shell B Wrote: I'm not sure about other areas, but firearms aren't allowed in bars anywhere I've lived. My ex spent a night locked up on post because he's an idiot and brought a gun to a bar. He then used the butt of it to break the window to our car because he locked the keys inside, all while a cop watched him from across the road. In hindsight, the divorce papers should've been filed the next morning.

Then stay out of the south - and Arizona.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/2009/09/29/...esday.html

Quote:Guns Allowed in Arizona Bars Starting Wednesday

(October 5, 2017 at 4:43 pm)Shell B Wrote: You still can't tell me why. That's all I'm asking. Were the colonists represented in Parliament? I already know the answer is no, so it wasn't a dubious slogan at all.

If you've done reading on the topic, you'll know that they were aware they weren't being taxed as much. They were pissed that they didn't get a say in what was taxed, where, when and how much.

Except for the loyalists....ofc.  Do you think that the average rebel signed up to get a say, and do you think they got one?  We know that the propagandists of the revolution made this case.  I think it was a good case to make.  That doesn't mean it hasn't been used as propaganda Shell......

Quote:That's not the point. Your original post made it seem as if there was no voting mentioned at all in the original Constitution. It was mentioned in virtually every clause.

My original post said that there would be -no- right to a vote in the constitution until 1870.  There wasn't.  

Quote:Huh? You said it was largely the same government. Now you're saying they just had the same ideas.

Because it was, by any metric.  It contained the same people, the same laws, and the same execution.  Our laws are still, in some cases..identical to the kings law all these years later.  Again, this is one of the reasons that our state was stable.  We didn't even try to reinvent the wheel on that count.  

Quote:Your first assumption was correct. I've been an American Revolution (particularly in Boston) researcher and columnist for the past decade. I think the problem is you assume you're more familiar with it than you are.

Quote:So, there was a huge issue regarding compensation at the birth of our nation.  Sama alluded to it previously.  It got as far as a planned and panned military coup.  The militia was not, itself, regarded kindly by the people who wrote the second amendment.  Far from thinking that it was necessary for a free state to ensure it's yada yada yada..they considered the militia to be a militarily useless armed rabble.  It was.  They nevertheless wrote, into our funding document, a self serving lie about militias.  They also discredited those who sought compensation by raising the spectre of the militia volunteer.  Up to and including heroes of our revolution who we then sought to leave nameless.

The founding fathers were propagandists.  Yes, they were many other things.  Yes, I think that they were free thinkers..maybe not -actually- as free as they came back then..but I get the gist.  I;m not pointing it out as criticism.  Without propaganda they could have never succeeded.  They had to find ways to make their own aims the aims of many, many more people who generally had no common interest.

What you're talking about in paragraph 2 does not follow from paragraph 1. This is where you're losing me.

What would you call a person who writes something that we know they thought to be completely false into the constitution when it was, then, self serving in a tight spot?  What do we call people who refer to their right to rebel, but do not include this right..even though they were including shit they didn't believe?

Quote:We're talking about pre-Constitution presumed propaganda. I disagree that "no taxation without representation" was propaganda. I also disagree that the founding fathers were "first and foremost" propagandists. There were only a handful of them who could be called propagandists to any large degree. If you had cited the Boston Massacre as an example of propaganda, I'd have agreed, but you chose a fairly honest quote from James Otis (who likely heard it before then, but who popularized it for the AR).

James Otis wasn't the name of every man carrying a musket, Shell.  I used the quote precisely -because- it was a good slogan, and I do think it's a legitimate greivance, and it was true.  It was still a propaganda tool.  Many of the rebels would be taxed at a higher rate and find themselves completely unrepresented by the nascent american government. They talked a great game and had earnest people making the arguments...but what did they then do.....?

I would hope that any discussion knocking the founding fathers off the pedastal would help people to realize -why- "what they meant" is moot, today. They were no better a government than we have today...easily worse. Both ideologically and practically. We have their analogs alive, today, in government. They were "states rights" people with regard to disenfranchisement and slave patrols. They didn't think that the rabble should have guns, they hated the rabble - same as today. They thought that militias were a joke, same as today. They still paid lip service to all of it, just like today.....up to and including writing it in to our founding document. The shit that's in there didn't get there by accident, or in a vacuum. It;s in there because they were beholden to things they did't believe...and not beholden to things they had claimed to believe in. Same as today. Lobbying, special interests...these are just new words for an ancient problem.

The first time knew what the word "militia" meant I was 12 years old and playing a game of Age of Kings.