RE: "Militia", what that meant then.
October 5, 2017 at 11:23 pm
(This post was last modified: October 5, 2017 at 11:36 pm by Shell B.)
(October 5, 2017 at 4:59 pm)Minimalist Wrote:(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
That's always been my intention.
So, "no taxation without representation" was a fair assessment of the position of the colonists and the founding fathers weren't first and foremost propagandists. You've moved the goalpost again to say the quote was true, but it was also used as propaganda. First, it was a dubious claim. How far we've come, Khem.
Suggesting I think James Otis was the only rebel is disengenuous. I brought him up because he coined the phrase. It's also not entirely certain that he ever carried a musket, as you just said he did. He was disabled by the time the war began. He may have snuck up to Bunker Hill with a neighbor's musket, but that could be just a story. I also don't think my position has to do with keeping anyone on a pedestal. I'm talking about historical accuracy, not your feelings.
Count this as another debate I'm bailing from because I can't be bothered.