I don't think it was mentioned on here there was a Georgia shooting and killing around a school graduation ceremony, yesterday. Again, thanks, gun nuts.
I've never quite understood the 'guns = freedom' line that seems so pervasive among the US gun culture.
No society has perfect freedom, which is otherwise known as anarchy. All societies have laws that restrict freedom (every offence is a restriction on your ability to do such). Some people think this only means laws against crimes, but it's also things like traffic rules for people to follow, so that traffic flows safely. They licence drivers, and register cars...which example can easily correlate to licencing gun owners and registering the guns they own. No one suggests licencing drivers is equivalent to taking away someones freedom. Common sense renders the 'guns=freedom' chant just that, a chant.
'Guns = a right under the 2nd ammendment' seems rather accurate (in the US), while "Guns = freedom" is sloganism.
If it is somehow derived from the term 'free state' in your 2nd ammendment, then one must also read it in context for the first part of the sentence, which starts with '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'
Quite frankly, given that the right to bear arms exists because of the need for a militia, it's an easy argument that if you don't belong to a militia, it doesn't apply to you...the first part can't be removed from the 2nd part - it's all one sentence, meaning it's intimately joined together.
Still, as I mentioned before, 'guns = freedom' doesn't stand up to logic, or comparison....unless you have an agenda.
By contrast, I can understand Gungasnakes 'it's worth the price' sentiment. I don't agree, but I understand that sentiment.
@edgarblythe,
School Shootings Have Already Killed Dozens in 2018Quote:Here are some of the school shootings of 2018. (This list does not include several times guns were used on or near school property, including suicides or attempted shootings in which no one was injured.)
Jan. 22: Italy High School
[...]
Jan. 23: Marshall County High School
[...]
Feb. 1: Salvador Castro Middle School
[...]
Feb. 14: Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School
[...]
March 7: Huffman High School
[...]
March 20: Great Mills High School
[...]
April 20: Forest High School
[...]
May 11: Highland High School
[...]
May 16: Dixon High School
[...]
May 18: Santa Fe High School
[...]
And most recently, as mentioned by edgar,
Fatal Shooting Follows High School Graduation Outside Atlanta
@vikorr,
vikorr wrote:I've never quite understood the 'guns = freedom' line that seems so pervasive among the US gun culture.
Free people have the right to have a military rifle, and to use it in self defense.
People who lack this right, are not free.
vikorr wrote:If it is somehow derived from the term 'free state' in your 2nd ammendment,
It isn't.
vikorr wrote:Quite frankly, given that the right to bear arms exists because of the need for a militia, it's an easy argument that if you don't belong to a militia, it doesn't apply to you...
The militia is the entire body of able-bodied people who might be called up to fight.
@Blickers,
Blickers wrote:Same ol' New World Order drivel, but you've got to love Tony Iommi's power chords
I saw Black Sabbath in 1992 with Dio singing. Their music is a bit light for me though.
New World Order nonsense is not a fair representation of gun culture.
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:I don't think it was mentioned on here there was a Georgia shooting and killing around a school graduation ceremony, yesterday. Again, thanks, gun nuts.
Blame the freedom haters. The freedom haters are the ones who ensured that the victims were defenseless.
@vikorr,
vikorr wrote:I've never quite understood the 'guns = freedom' line that seems so pervasive among the US gun culture.
Ultimately it comes from this:
Ceorl, also spelled Churl, the free peasant who formed the basis of society in Anglo-Saxon England. His free status was marked by his right to bear arms, his attendance at local courts, and his payment of dues directly to the king. His wergild, the sum that his family could accept in place of vengeance if he were killed, was valued at 200 shillings.
http://www.britannica.com/topic/ceorl
And here is the corresponding militia:
"Fyrd, tribal militia-like arrangement existing in Anglo-Saxon England from approximately AD 605. Local in character, it imposed military service upon every able-bodied free male. It was probably the duty of the ealderman, or sheriff, to call out and lead the fyrd. Fines imposed for neglecting the fyrd varied with the status of the individual, landholders receiving the heaviest fines and common labourers the lightest."
http://www.britannica.com/topic/fyrd
@oralloy,
Quote oralloy:
Quote:"Fyrd, tribal militia-like arrangement existing in Anglo-Saxon England from approximately AD 605. Local in character, it imposed military service upon every able-bodied free male. It was probably the duty of the ealderman, or sheriff, to call out and lead the fyrd. Fines imposed for neglecting the fyrd varied with the status of the individual, landholders receiving the heaviest fines and common labourers the lightest."
Impressive research, but there's still no evidence that crossbows capable of shooting 200 arrows per minute were legal among the general public in 605 AD.
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:Ceorl, also spelled Churl, the free peasant who formed the basis of society in Anglo-Saxon England. His free status was marked by his right to bear arms, his attendance at local courts, and his payment of dues directly to the king. His wergild, the sum that his family could accept in place of vengeance if he were killed, was valued at 200 shillings.
Quote:A churl (etymologically the same name as Charles / Carl and Old High German karal), in its earliest Old English (Anglo-Saxon) meaning, was simply "a man", and more particularly a "husband",[1] but the word soon came to mean "a non-servile peasant", still spelled ċeorl(e), and denoting the lowest rank of freemen.
(I quote here from
wikipedia because it would take too long to get other sources.)
That's exactly what you usually call serf, oralloy.
In the Angles' and Saxons' homeland they were called (in Latin)
homines censuales, (in German)
Zinsbauern ("interest peasants).
You should read the wikipedia article about
Weregild to understand the status of those (English) peasants better.
@Blickers,
Blickers wrote:Impressive research, but there's still no evidence that crossbows capable of shooting 200 arrows per minute were legal among the general public in 605 AD.
That's because there is no such thing as a crossbow that shoots 200 bolts a minute.
200 rounds a minute implies a machine gun. Are you saying that machine guns are required for self defense?
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:Quote:A churl (etymologically the same name as Charles / Carl and Old High German karal), in its earliest Old English (Anglo-Saxon) meaning, was simply "a man", and more particularly a "husband",[1] but the word soon came to mean "a non-servile peasant", still spelled ċeorl(e), and denoting the lowest rank of freemen.
(I quote here from
wikipedia because it would take too long to get other sources.)
That's exactly what you usually call serf, oralloy.
No. A serf does not have the right to bear arms.
Note:
"a non-servile peasant" "the lowest rank of freemen"
Walter Hinteler wrote:You should read the wikipedia article about
Weregild to understand the status of those (English) peasants better.
"Thralls and slaves legally commanded no weregild, but it was commonplace to make a nominal payment in the case of a thrall and the value of the slave in such a case. Technically this amount cannot be called a weregild, because it was more akin to a reimbursement to the owner for lost or damaged property."
@oralloy,
Quote Blickers:
Quote:there's still no evidence that crossbows capable of shooting 200 arrows per minute were legal among the general public in 605 AD.
Quote oralloy:
Quote:That's because there is no such thing as a crossbow that shoots 200 bolts a minute.
200 rounds a minute implies a machine gun. Are you saying that machine guns are required for self defense?
An AR-15 semiautomatic, available to the general public, can shoot about three rounds a second. That's 180 rounds a minute.
Are you saying that an AR-15 is required for self-defense?
@Blickers,
Blickers wrote:An AR-15 semiautomatic, available to the general public, can shoot about three rounds a second. That's 180 rounds a minute.
It would be difficult to pull a trigger three times a second for any length of time, and certainly not while aiming usefully.
Blickers wrote:Are you saying that an AR-15 is required for self-defense?
The AR-15 is an ordinary rifle. Self defense does require that people be allowed to possess ordinary rifles.
@oralloy,
Quote oralloy:
Quote:It would be difficult to pull a trigger three times a second for any length of time, and certainly not while aiming usefully.
Maybe not for several minutes at a time, but it's not hard to keep pulling the trigger at 3 shots per second for a large portion of a minute. That's a lot of bullets.
The fully automatic version of the assault rifle is not designed to be aimed carefully, it was designed by the Germans at the end of WWII to fill the air with bullets at close range.
coldjoint wrote:I would not go down the history rabbit hole with Wally. You will die from boredom. History begins with the 2nd amendment in 1789. Anything before is irrelevant.
It won't be a problem. I have the facts and the law to back up my position. My position on this issue is impregnable.
@Blickers,
Blickers wrote:Maybe not for several minutes at a time, but it's not hard to keep pulling the trigger at 3 shots per second for a large portion of a minute. That's a lot of bullets.
It sounds hard to me. And useful aiming would be impossible.
Blickers wrote:The fully automatic version of the assault rifle is not designed to be aimed carefully, it was designed by the Germans at the end of WWII to fill the air with bullets at close range.
M-16s have always been very accurate, and quite useful in aimed fire when set to semi-auto.
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:No. A serf does not have the right to bear arms.
Not really. At least not here, since many "serfs" owned heritable property and got other rights granted by an "overlord".
oralloy wrote:Note: "a non-servile peasant" "the lowest rank of freemen"
This obviously differs from region to region and changed over times.
Your (primary) source is ?
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:Not really. At least not here, since many "serfs" owned heritable property and got other rights granted by an "overlord".
Free people don't have to get permission from their lord before they exercise their rights. They are allowed to exercise their rights simply because they choose to do so, no matter what anyone else thinks about it.
That's why Europeans are not free. They are only allowed to have guns if their government thinks that they have a good reason for having guns.
Americans are allowed to have guns if we choose to have guns. We don't have to convince our government that we have a good reason to have guns before we are allowed to have them.
Walter Hinteler wrote:Your (primary) source is ?
My source is your post. I quoted those phrases directly from the post that I was replying to.
You appear to have been quoting Wikipedia, so I guess that was the source.
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:I have the facts and the law to back up my position.
To what law are you referring, the law code issued by Æthelberht?
(The Saxons here (= in the "Anglo-Saxon homelands) had only as first written law law the
Sachsenspiegel ("Saxon mirror"), issued some decades or even centuries later.)
