« First « Previous Comments 985 - 1,024 of 1,397 Next » Last » Search these comments
How the British 'Gun Control' Program Precipitated the American Revolution
When people think of the causes of the American War for Independence, they think of slogans like “no taxation without representation” or cause célèbre like the Boston Tea Party.
In reality, however, what finally forced the colonials into a shooting war with the British Army in April 1775 was not taxes or even warrant-less searches of homes and their occupation by soldiers, but one of many attempts by the British to disarm Americans as part of an overall 'gun control' program, according to David B. Kopel.
Furthermore, had the American colonies lost their war for independence, the British government intended to strip them of all their guns and place them under the thumb of a permanent standing army.
In his paper titled “How the British 'Gun Control' Program Precipitated the American Revolution,” Kopel claims that various 'gun control' policies by the British following the Boston Tea Party, including a ban on firearm and gunpowder importation, tells us not only the purpose of the Second Amendment, but its relevance within the context of today’s 'gun control' debate.
“The ideology underlying all forms of American resistance to British usurpations and infringements was explicitly premised on the right of self-defense of all inalienable rights,” Kopel writes. “From the self-defense foundation was constructed a political theory in which the people were the masters and government the servant, so that the people have the right to remove a disobedient servant. The philosophy was not novel, but was directly derived from political and legal philosophers such as John Locke, Hugo Grotius, and Edward Coke.”
Kopel writes that two important things underlined the American response to the British policies. One was the practical concept of self-defense, which British disarmament measures was making more difficult. The other, and more relevant concept, was that “Americans made no distinction between self-defense against a lone criminal or against a criminal government.”
We know from the Ottoman Penal Code that the firearm registry was universal and instituted before the genocide. In addition to a gun registry, there were specific penalties put in place for Christians if they were caught openly bearing arms. Despite these restrictions, I’m proud that people in my ancestors’ village of Tomarza were known to openly carry guns in direct defiance of the tyrannical Turkish government.
Unfortunately, their defiance did not stop the Turks in the long run. My great-grandfather’s brother, an eyewitness, wrote in a letter that after the Turks declared that all registered guns would be confiscated, it resulted in “all weapons, even hunting guns, [being] surrendered to the government.” If anyone refused to do so, they would be put to death.
65% of USA Enjoys Right to Carry without a Government Permission Slip
https://archive.ph/2020.07.12-074312/https://imgur.com/a/AIIbbPs
Tiananmen.
Patrick says
https://archive.ph/2020.07.12-074312/https://imgur.com/a/AIIbbPs
Tiananmen.
Color revolution. Good thing it was quashed. Amirite? We can't have these CIA-induced coups against our GREAT ANTIGLOBALIST LEADERS, no Siree Bob!
Eric Holder says
Patrick says
https://archive.ph/2020.07.12-074312/https://imgur.com/a/AIIbbPs
Tiananmen.
Color revolution. Good thing it was quashed. Amirite? We can't have these CIA-induced coups against our GREAT ANTIGLOBALIST LEADERS, no Siree Bob!
The United States began to trade with China AFTER Tienanmen Square, not before.
So it's not a good thing that CIA-induced color revolution was quashed, you say?
looking at websites like Cheaper than Dirt and Ammo Land, everything is down a lot in price
as if ammo and 9 mm handguns are back to 2018 prices
.
...in my experience in Florida, and as I travel and speak to many, I am finding Hispanics from all socioeconomic backgrounds increasingly demonstrating a greater appreciation for traditional American values, including respect for the U.S. Constitution and, in particular, the Second Amendment.
The Number of Hispanic Gun Owners in America is Growing The National Shooting Sports Foundation, the trade group representing firearms manufacturers, commissioned a retailer survey to gauge the interest of Hispanics in America in exercising their lawful right to keep and bear arms. The survey determined that law-abiding Hispanic-Americans purchased firearms in 2020 at a 49% higher rate than they did in 2019. This uptick in interest seemed to be reflected in the 2020 presidential election, as the former president got 10% more of the Hispanic vote than he did in 2016.
« First « Previous Comments 985 - 1,024 of 1,397 Next » Last » Search these comments
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Couple things to note in there:
1. The specific mention of a militia being the reason for the need to bear arms.
2. The 2nd Amendment never mentions the word gun at all.
So, what exactly is the definition of "arms"?
In 1755 Dr. Johnson’s Dictionary of the English Language was first published. It defined “arms” as “weapons of offence, or armour of defence.”
Weapons of offence would seem to include pretty much anything and everything, from knives to nuclear weapons. The US has already seen fit to ban some weapons of offence so the 2nd Amendment clearly has not been interpreted strictly as meaning that the US cannot ban all "arms". Therefore, the 2nd Amendment does not guarantee citizens the right to own whatever weapons they choose.
So it then becomes a question of which weapons should be banned, which should be strictly regulated, and which should be lightly regulated or not at all. Like anything else, we should weigh an individual's right with society's right. When looked at in that manner, it becomes very difficult to justify why fully automatic or semi automatic rifles should be allowed. What purpose do they serve an individual? And why would that purpose outweigh the extreme damage those weapons have cased society??
Patrick thinks the Chamber of Commerce is the worst organization, and he may be correct, but the NRA is not far behind.