THE Gun Thread

[The Grand Nudger]

Muskets were lethal as all get out- they greatly expanded the carnage and intensity of the battlefield and people took note of how horrific its invention was.

Further, the entire bit was one of the many compromises they made with the slaveholding class which very much depended on private militias to do business.

Point being, I don’t think we need to impart more compassion, foresight, and prudent reason to the founders than their dead dead document demonstrates. They had a lot of really shitty opinions on a lot of things. It really doesn’t matter what they could have foreseen…and you’d probably be disappointed by the reactions of those men, as opposed to their legends.

[Brian37]

Muskets were lethal as all get out- they greatly expanded the carnage and intensity of the battlefield and people took note of how horrific its invention was.

Further, the entire bit was one of the many compromises they made with the slaveholding class which very much depended on private militias to do business.

Point being, I don’t think we need to impart more compassion, foresight, and prudent reason to the founders than their dead dead document demonstrates.  They had a lot of really shitty opinions on a lot of things.  It really doesn’t matter what they could have foreseen…and you’d probably be disappointed by the reactions of those men, as opposed to their legends.

Nobody should ever paint the founders as the cast of Leave It To Beaver. Franklin fucked anything that moved and would make Bill Clinton look like a celibate monk. And yes, the worst of it is that many of them did own slaves. But there was even at that time abolitionists. The language used in the early versions of the Constitution did speak of ending slavery, but the language was taken out because of the social norms of it's time, but mainly from the south. Slavery had actually ended in most locations in the north by the time Jefferson and Adams died. Now nobody can argue that was for 100% moral reasons, but more along the lines that the industrial age took a lot of necessity for labor out of it. The South had not kept up with the changing technology and didn't want to loose their free labor. 

But even with all the nasty shit that happened with not only blacks, but natives, and even with women having little to no rights. It was because of the principles of redress of grievance, assembly, and free speech, that allowed future minorities to break those chains and become more a part of mainstream society. You cannot blame the founders for example, for the ignorance of those who followed Susan B's example for still having a ban on women having credit cards until 1970. Susan B Anthony used those same principles to rail against white Christian sexism by using free speech to say, "I distrust those people who know so  well what God wants them to do, because I always notice it coincides with their own desires". And she also used the principle of redress of grievance to get women the right to vote. 

The founders too, of many were very skeptical of magical mythology and insisted on keeping religious law out of common law. No, the founders were far from squeaky clean, but some of their principles are still useful today. Not all, but many. I would bet my life that most, if not all of the founders would have left out the 2nd Amendment precisely because there are assholes who don't understand today that "well regulated" is also part of that Amendment. 

But you are absolutely correct GN, that there is a gross distortion by the right as to what the founders said and meant, and the right wants to paint them as magic super heros whose shit never stank. If Jefferson and Paine were to run for President today, there is absolutely no way they could run on the Republican ticket and get passed the primaries with the way they railed against superstition and pulpit politics. 

The same people who blindly worship the founders would have to define Washington as evil because he once threatened to go after whiskey maker tax dodgers and he would have used the Militia to enforce them to pay taxes. And yes, back then the "well regulated" militia was used by slave owners to capture and return escaped slaves. But, what they call "militia" we now call the national guard. And they can be used for lots of good reasons, like dispersing life saving necessities during  natural disaster, or even distributing vaccines during a pandemic. 

So they are not heros, no, but they did still set the stage for more and more people over decades and almost 2 and a half centuries for more and more people to be part of our better national motto, "E-Pluribus Unum".

[Rev. Rye]

But you are absolutely correct GN, that there is a gross distortion by the right as to what the founders said and meant, and the right wants to paint them as magic super heros whose shit never stank. If Jefferson and Paine were to run for President today, there is absolutely no way they could run on the Republican ticket and get passed the primaries with the way they railed against superstition and pulpit politics. 

The same people who blindly worship the founders would have to define Washington as evil because he once threatened to go after whiskey maker tax dodgers and he would have used the Militia to enforce them to pay taxes. And yes, back then the "well regulated" militia was used by slave owners to capture and return escaped slaves. But, what they call "militia" we now call the national guard. And they can be used for lots of good reasons, like dispersing life saving necessities during  natural disaster, or even distributing vaccines during a pandemic.

It's also worth noting that the militia was so important at the time because as of 1787, people weren't convinced that a full-on federal army would even be practical, let alone desirable. Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist Paper 29, said "The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution."

The Second Amendment was written for a time when those well-regulated militias were the biggest line of defense against invaders, and the US Army, as we know it, didn't even really exist.

[tackattack]

@Rev. Rye That's true, the national guard predates the continental army by more than 100 years I believe. Still though, by 1787 the army had been around a bit and well.. wars, independence and stuff...

[Rev. Rye]

@Rev. Rye That's true, the national guard predates the continental army by more than 100 years I believe. Still though, by 1787 the army had been around a bit and well.. wars, independence and stuff...

Of course, the Continental Army that fought in the American Revolution was disbanded in 1783. By the time of the Constitution’s framing, all that remained was a single legion and the state militias.

[Brian37]

But you are absolutely correct GN, that there is a gross distortion by the right as to what the founders said and meant, and the right wants to paint them as magic super heros whose shit never stank. If Jefferson and Paine were to run for President today, there is absolutely no way they could run on the Republican ticket and get passed the primaries with the way they railed against superstition and pulpit politics. 

The same people who blindly worship the founders would have to define Washington as evil because he once threatened to go after whiskey maker tax dodgers and he would have used the Militia to enforce them to pay taxes. And yes, back then the "well regulated" militia was used by slave owners to capture and return escaped slaves. But, what they call "militia" we now call the national guard. And they can be used for lots of good reasons, like dispersing life saving necessities during  natural disaster, or even distributing vaccines during a pandemic.

It's also worth noting that the militia was so important at the time because as of 1787, people weren't convinced that a full-on federal army would even be practical, let alone desirable. Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist Paper 29, said "The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution."

The Second Amendment was written for a time when those well-regulated militias were the biggest line of defense against invaders, and the US Army, as we know it, didn't even really exist.

But these idiot strict originalists say they need their weapons to potentially have to fight a tyrannical government. If that is the case they should be fighting the GOP and Trumpism, because both are doing their best to destroy our institutions and become the only power in power forever.

But if they stupidly think they can even use AR-15s against military tanks or fighter jets, they can try, but they will not get far.

[The Grand Nudger]

Drones. They'd be shooting at drones. The DoD isn't dumb enough to send american bodies in to produce dead american bodies - even if the situation genuinely called for it.

Thing is, as the scotus dissents are noticing - these people aren't originalists, or textualists. They're a post policy post process insurgency of convenience bound together by negative partisanship and absolutely nothing else. To an extent, misinformation about our misadventures in the middle-east these past few years buttressed this notion. Being that magats here believed (for hilariously thematic reasons) that insurgents elsewhere were "winning" against us forces, they now posit that they might do the same.

Acceptable terms, if you ask me. I'd love to see the magats "winning" like their new heroes did. They've managed to fully exhaust the gargantuan amount of patience I have for my fellow americans from a political standpoint. I used to console myself with the idea that, as was famously said - we'll do the right thing after we try everything else. Not so much anymore. The field of "everything else" now includes so much that it amounts to a suicide pact on every crucial issue we face.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Drones.  They'd be shooting at drones.  The DoD isn't dumb enough to send american bodies in to produce dead american bodies - even if the situation genuinely called for it.

Thing is, as the scotus dissents are noticing - these people aren't originalists, or textualists.  They're a post policy post process insurgency of convenience bound together by negative partisanship and absolutely nothing else.  To an extent, misinformation about our misadventures in the middle-east these past few years buttressed this notion.  Being that magats here believed (for hilariously thematic reasons) that insurgents elsewhere were "winning" against us forces, they now posit that they might do the same.

Acceptable terms, if you ask me.  I'd love to see the magats "winning" like their new heroes did.  They've managed to fully exhaust the gargantuan amount of patience I have for my fellow americans from a political standpoint.  I used to console myself with the idea that, as was famously said - we'll do the right thing after we try everything else.  Not so much anymore.  The field of "everything else" now includes so much that it amounts to a suicide pact on every crucial issue we face.

Yup. They’re basically bringing grandpappy’s squirrel gun to a drone fight.

Boru

[The Grand Nudger]

Only because they don't actually want to countenance legitimately overthrowing those institutions to which they owe their very existence. Half assed rebels without a cause, who've spent their entire lives honing no other skills than that which maintain the system.....suddenly realizing the system might just be the thing shitting on them, as far as I can see. If it's an old-timey shootout at the OK Corral, they wanna be the revolutionary counter-culture...but anything they could actually field and do to win...nah. Hard pass.

Get back to me about great replacement shit and how much you believe it when you and your forces have effected a nationwide rolling brownout or worse. I've seen it done, I know the difference between committed people and cosplaying malcontents.

[Brian37]

Drones.  They'd be shooting at drones.  The DoD isn't dumb enough to send american bodies in to produce dead american bodies - even if the situation genuinely called for it.

Thing is, as the scotus dissents are noticing - these people aren't originalists, or textualists.  They're a post policy post process insurgency of convenience bound together by negative partisanship and absolutely nothing else.  To an extent, misinformation about our misadventures in the middle-east these past few years buttressed this notion.  Being that magats here believed (for hilariously thematic reasons) that insurgents elsewhere were "winning" against us forces, they now posit that they might do the same.

Acceptable terms, if you ask me.  I'd love to see the magats "winning" like their new heroes did.  They've managed to fully exhaust the gargantuan amount of patience I have for my fellow americans from a political standpoint.  I used to console myself with the idea that, as was famously said - we'll do the right thing after we try everything else.  Not so much anymore.  The field of "everything else" now includes so much that it amounts to a suicide pact on every crucial issue we face.

You have  point there if I am reading you correctly, and correct me if I am wrong here. I do not however agree that they will knock themselves out if they win. If they nominate a charismatic Republican who is calm and seems reasonable, but has the same designs as Trumpism, that Republican could be far more dangerous than Trump. 

But you are absolutely right, in that "The field of everything else"" as you put it, does include now a scorched earth suicide pact. These right wing sickos are too stupid to see that they are being lead down the same road Hitler took Germany, and they are at this point in American history too far gone to any pragmatic level to wise up before it is too late. They are unfortunately behaving exactly like the bully of a God they worship in as depicted by many verses in the bible like "I am a jealous God", and " Vengeance is mine". They are willing to burn our institutions to the ground, destroy our principles of checks on power and become a fascist state. They are just like a hostage taker who is willing to murder everyone if you don't let them keep power indefinitely. 

I have a close friend who thought like you, always the well intended eternal optimist. It would be wonderful if they could learn from prior human history, but right now, the chances look very bleak that that will happen. As much as I love the goodness in someone like Anne Frank who said something to the effect of, "In spite of everything, I truly believe humans are good at heart." She by no means thought Nazis were good, but only in that if their government had not followed a madman, they'd probably more likely have not done what they did. Unfortunately otherwise reasonable people can and will do the most horrible things to other humans when they perceive a a non existent threat as being real. 

I deeply fear at this point, if we do not fight back we will lose the very fragile value of a pluralistic Republic. But again at least with me by "fight back" I am strictly speaking about loud voices every day on a sustained level, and working to end gerrymandering and expand our map, and fill up as many judge seats while we can. 

You cannot depend on the fearful, gullible and preyed upon to wake up. You have to attack the snake at it's head, and right now that snake is the poison of dangerous lies infecting our political system. Unfortunately the GOP and Trumpism is that "domestic" as in "foreign and domestic" the oath of office demands all politicians, regardless of party to defend against.