Are there really more "mass shootings" in the U.S.?

Post Reply New Topic

Wrong. Read up on your Revolutionary War history <https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1995/05/31/when-the-redcoats-confiscated-guns/e38d0810-af85-4949-8d93-3da746601e65/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.c5b0368e6717>.

Nope. Still right.

You're hilariously wrong and pointed to an article that only stated the British took guns, not that the war was fought over gun rights.

I never stated the British didn't take guns.

Find a scholarly article that truly posits the theory that: "THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION WAS PRIMARILY A WAR OVER GUN RIGHTS" or "THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION WAS PRIMARILY A WAR SO PEOPLE COULD KEEP THEIR GUNS" rather than seeking to become its own entity away from British rule and oppression (which that oppression took many forms, such as "no taxation without representation").

Hitler took away guns too - that doesn't mean WWII was based around guns like your conflation would paint it as.

Okay, maybe this article <http://www.davekopel.org/2A/LawRev/american-revolution-against-british-gun-control.html> will be more convincing (by the way, Dave is another friend of mine, and is a Democrat. He is famous for his annual BATFE celebrations in Colorado; something he started years ago when he was an assistant Colorado Attorney General.).

Once again it's positing that taking guns was a part of the war, not that the war was fought to keep guns. There is a difference. You only listed one way out of several that King George was oppressed America.

Oppression (of which not keeping guns is included, but not the sole motivator) caused the American Revolution. George taking guns was a part of that, but not the underlaying cause as you are positioning. It's the whole chicken and egg metaphor.

Also going back to the American Revolution:

(1) Nobody is taking about seizing all guns, but increased measures of who can own one. There is a difference between "sane gun laws" and "confiscate all guns and nobody can own one."

(2) The guns during the American Revolution are extremely different from people owning rapid-fire firearms of today that were both built and designed for combat.

Do you know how slowly a musket fires and how many rounds it can hold?

Do you know the technical differences between the guns that were available during the time of the second amendment and the guns that are readily available on the market today?

(3) You are aware that people that were or a part of the NRA are calling for "sane gun laws" as well, right? So not only are soldiers, but so are gun enthusiasts and NRA members.

This is where "keep gun laws the way they are now" falls apart - the 2nd amendment was from a different time in a gun's history, active military and gun enthusiast NRA members both align with calling for "sane gun rights." So, it falls back on the right going to extremes "take all our guns" which nobody is calling for especially not NRA members.

Last edited by Spooky_Mulder on 26 Sep 2018, 12:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Then why, out of all the options available to Mad King George to quell the matter, that even members of parliament despised, did he choose to confiscate firearms in the most loud and rebellious colony in North America causing it to become home to the first ground battle in the worst war waged by him? Certainly, he could have found some other colony more accommodating to him, say New York (which never wanted in on the revolution anyway). Taking the firearms from Massachusetts would have had the ability to convince the other colonies to come to heel, correct? Mad George had good reason to do what he did, but he failed to understand what world leaders always fail to understand: that guerrilla warfare among the populaces of a community almost always win.

Final comment since you're never stating anything new and I'm tired of this circle about:

Taking away guns was a part, but not the whole.

That's where you keep on falling flat - I'm not saying it wasn't a part, so you're arguing to thin air saying that it was.

However, you're saying it's the primary reason the war was fought which is laughable since King George oppressed America in numerous ways of which you're only focused on one issue of many.

The primary cause is the all encompassing term "oppression" which includes him taking guns.

Simple as that.

It's kinda like how you said plutocrats were conspiring to have a civil war, when I stated nothing of the sort and just said rich allies of the poor can see they're angry and are trying to fight against the rich oppressors to fix things for the poor.

Again here, you're arguing that "George took guns" and acting as though people are disagreeing with that statement - however everyone is agreeing with that statement. So it is arguing to thin air...

You did when you wrote:


If you take away the firearm, you take away the right to enjoy them.

Yes, wars weren't fought over gun rights (that eludes that it is the primary cause) - they were fought over oppression, of which taking guns is a part of. You are laser focused to a fault on a part rather than the whole.

Imagine that war is a completed puzzle and in order to lead to it you need all the pieces. George taking guns is one piece of the puzzle, but it's not the full puzzle which is what you're positioning.

And, it is my prior statement ("If you take away the firearm, you essentially take away the right to enjoy them") which shows that while Mad George was incapacitated about such matters, his ministers weren't. They knew that, if you take away the right, you take away the instrument (and vice versa, in my opinion). The documentary evidence preceding the Battles of Lexington and Concord suggests strongly that the ministers were quite calculating about their plans. To conflate the examples of "taking" the right and the instrument, both are jeopardized causing a martial fait accompli. In other words, taking either the right or the instrument, the effect is the same, ipso facto.

As said, you're arguing with thin air. But, you do you man.

So, if taking the "freedom of speech" right from Americans, would they retain their ability to speak, or not? The same could be asked about all rights within the Constitution for the United States of America, couldn't it?

Would having our Second Amendment rights taken continue to protect our firearms, or not?

And nobody is talking about taking the Second Amendment away. Taking away guns and sane gun laws aren't the same thing; if they were, numerous NRA members wouldn't be FOR it.

It's EXACTLY like someone saying "we have a harassment policy at work" and the next person going to extremes berating that ALL manners of speech is going away. It's seriously like trying to talk apple and pudding to someone.

Last edited by Spooky_Mulder on 26 Sep 2018, 3:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I thought retired Supreme Court justice John Paul Stevens did just this year? I mean I know it was met with a "Shhhhhh!! ! Don't come right out and say it, judge!", but still he did throw it out there....

Those people exist - but they are in the vast minority and even most of the left doesn't take them seriously.

The only people who do are those obsessed with guns and fear mongering that someone will take their gun away.

It's like they've literally programmed many on the right to instantly link "sane gun laws" to "take them away" even when nobody mentions the very notion of doing so. It's like they Pavlov dogged the right, successfully too at that.

Last edited by Spooky_Mulder on 26 Sep 2018, 3:22 pm, edited 2 times in total.

John Paul Stevens is still alive, 98 years old.

Camel's nose, Spooky. Camel's nose....

I don't have a daughter, but I would be equally amused at the idea of a daughter inviting her boyfriend over to do "homework" together in her room and telling her parents that by wanting to keep her bedroom door closed isn't remotely the same as having sex. "I'm not asking to have sex with him in my bedroom, Dad!".

Come on now, you don't really believe that passing in increased number of "sensible gun laws" has a finite stopping point which would never come close to approaching the venerable 2nd Amendment, do you? If you say you do, I'm sorry, but I wouldn't believe you.

We already have proof against such a notion. The UK. Banned guns. Violence continued. Now from what I understand the UK is considering banning knives if they haven't already.

You don't really personally believe that a ban on so called "assault weapons" or "high capacity magazines" will do the trick and even if it doesn't and gun violence continues, too bad, have to stop there?

For the record, I don't own any such thing and don't have any desire to. I do know law abiding people that do own such weapons and I could give a rip about it and have zero fear of them owning such things.