"Militia", what that meant then.

[Brian37]

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

Guns Allowed in Arizona Bars Starting Wednesday

Yep, the NRA just like 45, cant resist revenge and spite, it does not matter if their laws are bat shit insane, it is all about "merka" and "I can".

Booze and guns, like peanut butter and jelly.

[Shell B]

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

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.

[The Grand Nudger]

---

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.

It's clear that the same state which used it to work up the rabble had no interest in enfrenchising that same rabble.  I don't know what to tell you.  I call that dubious, you don't.  

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.

My feelings, lol?  My comments regarding Otis were meant only to suggest that the motivations of the individual rebels themselves were not his comments or position.

Count this as another debate I'm bailing from because I can't be bothered.

Okay.

[Minimalist]

"No Taxation Without Representation" sounds fair from an American point-of-view.  The problem was that as a result of the Treaty of Paris in 1763 which ended the 7 Years War:



Britain ended up with a lot of other colonies.  Did the same rules apply to them or were the Americans seeking special treatment?  Canada was full of Frenchmen ( and Indians ).  India was full of (real) Indians!  Jamaica?  The Bahamas??

How long before the denizens of those other territories would have been whining for "representation" too. 

The British were in large part the authors of their own destruction during the War and totally mishandled the political as well as the military aspects of the campaign with their arrogance but it isn't as if there weren't other considerations that they had to take which the colonists didn't.

[Shell B]

From an ethical standpoint, those places absolutely should've called for representation, just as PR should now.

Britain needed the money to pay for the debt they'd incurred fighting the French. They weren't going to give it up. Had they compromised, it's at least somewhat likely that history would have gone completely differently. Instead they passed laws punishing the colonies. Typical.

[Minimalist]

Yes, typical.  However, Gibraltar ( occupied in 1704 ) still lacks representation in Parliament which suggests that Britain was not going down that road, ever.  The rest of their empire is long gone.

[Shell B]

The rest of their empire is long gone.

Probably due to their fantastic people skills.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

The crown also appealed to the practicality of their model.  They insisted that the objections of the rebellious colonists were unfounded..and truth be told, they were.

Nevertheless, a small portion of those colonists went all pewpewpew and then argued, as the crown had argued, that there was no reason to ever go pewpewpew on them.  

You'd think that they (and now you) imagine that they'd solved the problem of tyranny forever.  I mean, obviously, when subject to tyranny, the best way to remedy it...is a vote......it's not like your fellow subjects might vote in favor of the tyrant or anything.........

Still small bands of pewpew'ers going off whenever they got pissed off doesn't seem like anything I'd support.

A big difference between then and now is that each colony had some degree of self rule.  The only beef was with the oversight insisted upon by the king.  So each colony had a representative body which could meet with the others and come to consensus on what to do about the king.

We don't have that.  All we have are regional and national representative bodies - which already hold the power formerly represented by that king.  Pretty different situation.

I find it absurd to interpret the second amendment as sanctioning insurrection.  And permitting the holding of guns for that reason is just nutty.  An endless escalation of violence is not a great solution to any problem, as is thinking that any ad hoc band of insurrectionists would represent your interests better than the current rule of law.

The Second Amendment was added to the Constitution to give the slavers the means to put down slave insurrections.  The Revolutionary War was fought to ensure that slavery remained legal in the colonies.

[Brian37]

Still small bands of pewpew'ers going off whenever they got pissed off doesn't seem like anything I'd support.

A big difference between then and now is that each colony had some degree of self rule.  The only beef was with the oversight insisted upon by the king.  So each colony had a representative body which could meet with the others and come to consensus on what to do about the king.

We don't have that.  All we have are regional and national representative bodies - which already hold the power formerly represented by that king.  Pretty different situation.

I find it absurd to interpret the second amendment as sanctioning insurrection.  And permitting the holding of guns for that reason is just nutty.  An endless escalation of violence is not a great solution to any problem, as is thinking that any ad hoc band of insurrectionists would represent your interests better than the current rule of law.

The Second Amendment was added to the Constitution to give the slavers the means to put down slave insurrections.  The Revolutionary War was fought to ensure that slavery remained legal in the colonies.

Ok I agree, so why would anyone defend it then?

That still does not change that by the time that Adams and Jefferson died slavery in the North was a majority GONE, and it does not change that several of the founders, even if not all WERE abolitionists.

Nor does it change that the war was not fought to keep slavery, but to fight England. The language of 3/5ths was not because everyone wanted it, but because they were politicians. 

That is nothing close to what the South fought for. 

I think, even with all the flaws the founders had and the conflicts on slavery that nobody should deny existed, the language they put in ink DID set the stage for Lincoln. 

But, if one rightfully points out that the 2nd amendment was used to prevent a slave revolt, all the more reason the right is full of shit. 

With the founders it was a mixed bag. With the Civil war it was literally back and white.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/The-Fou...ry-1269536

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I think the idea that the militias were to put down slave revolts is myopic. The biggest threat to the nascent US wasn't slave revolts, but those could happen, so they were on the list of things the militia would respond to. Hyperfocusing on this one line in the list is agenda-driven.