Mass Shooting At Denver Batman Movie Premiere

@oralloy,

Quote:

They could have had a standing army if they wanted one.

I'm reading THE UNITED STATES: The History of a Republic by Hofstadter, Miller and Aaron and according to that they could not have a standing army because they couldn't agree how to pay for it or how it would be used.

2 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Wearing weapons showed that those Saxons were free

YES! Exactly!

I'll get to the rest of your post in a second. It was just really nice to see those particular words posted.

Americans are free too.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

farmerman wrote:
I was listeninmg to Ben STein thiw AM and he was spewing the right hand view that gun contyrol doesnt stop gun deaths. Of course he had no other idea in his pointy head.

He was mistaken. He should have said it doesn't stop homicides.

Taking away guns does reduce "gun-related" homicide, as people who would have been killed with guns, are instead killed with other weapons.

What taking away guns doesn't do, is greatly reduce the levels of homicide.
The killers continue to kill, just with other weapons.

Murderers did not wait until guns were invented
to begin killing people. Ask Julius Caesar.

Did we need guns when we nuked the Japs on 8/6/1945 ?

Did Tim McVeigh need guns in Oklahoma City??????

Did the Moslems need guns on 9/11/1 ???????

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

They strengthened and protected the militia because they wanted it.

Which begs the question why they wanted it. Obviously they strengthened and protected the militia because they wanted it. Why would they do something they didn't want. You're trying to make a virtue out of necessity.

A Federal army under the control of northern states could have enforced the abolition of slavery and increased duties on tobacco, rice and indigo and with southern states being charged taxes to pay for it.

It was out of the question if the 13 states were to remain united. It was militia at a state level or nothing.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

They felt that having a standing army would bring the same sort of tyranny that they had just defeated

And now you have a standing army, a navy, an airforce, an FBI, an intelligence agency and a Dept of Homeland Security. If they were right I presume you are really under the cosh.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

Taking away guns does reduce "gun-related" homicide, as people who would have been killed with guns, are instead killed with other weapons.

Tripe--and here's why. There is a chance with most other weapons for the victim of an attack. Guns are for bushwhackers. Attacking with knives, bombs are very rare, is risky for the attacker. Much more so than with guns.

1 Reply

@spendius,

The main problem was fear of a standing army in itself taking over and also fear of a central government being overwhelming powerful compare to the states if there was a large standing army under Federal control.

Then the Federal government setting up it own district of Columbia that they control where mainly due to them needing to once flee Philadelphia when some soldiers march on congress over pay issues and the governor of PA would not intervene with troops

When it come to our freedoms Americans are not a trusting lot and never had been so we sleep far better when there are balances of powers between the central government and the states and between both of them and an arm citizenry.

To the American way of thinking your English freedoms are hanging by a damn thread.

An your being talk into being disarm is not a good sign at all.

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

oralloy wrote:
England did once have some of those problems. First the Romans invaded and conquered them. Then after Rome collapsed, various Germanic tribes (Anglos, Saxons, etc) invaded and conquered them. Then more Germanic tribes (Normans) invaded and conquered the earlier Germanic tribes. Then more Germanic tribes (Vikings) invaded and pillaged.

King Henry Plantagenet set up a system of militia in 1181 with his Assize of Arms. Our own militia system was descended from that.

Some centuries later there was a bit of a squabble over Catholicism, and the result was the creation of the 1689 English Bill of Rights. Our own right to carry guns in public is descended from that.

And you know that from whom?

The thing about the series of invasions of England over the centuries, I picked up from all the history I've learned over the years. No particular source stands out.

Interestingly some people think that the figure that led to the legend of King Arthur was a heroic military officer (not a political leader) after the collapse of the Romans, when the locals were trying to fend off the invading Anglos/Saxons.

King Henry Plantagenet's 1181 Assize of Arms is listed here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assize_of_Arms_of_1181

It looks like the part of the wiki article regarding the Second Amendment is botched. The claim is not that the Assize of Arms was the beginning of the right. It was only the creation of England's militia system.

But it has the text of the Assize of Arms itself quoted OK.

Here is good information about the background of the English Bill of Rights:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689

Walter Hinteler wrote:

The Saxons brought with them from here the fyrd, known in Roman times as posse comitatus.

I'd be surprised if there were any Roman connections to the Fyrd. The concept of the militia was much more suited to Germanic ways of thinking and fighting than it was to Roman ways of thinking and fighting.

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Wearing weapons showed that those Saxons were free (and besides that, it was a connection to their ancestors).
The Jutes, Angles, Normen had very similar traditions re weapons as well as re militia.

Yes. Freedom is grand! We Americans will die before we ever give it up.

Walter Hinteler wrote:

And do you have any idea why the Normans are called such? (Hint: north men)

I'd never really thought about it before. But it stands to reason that the term had to have an origin of some sort.

Walter Hinteler wrote:

The 'idea' of having a standing army only arose in the late 17th century in Europe, after the 30-years war. And even then, not all countries did have one - because they couldn't afford this mode.

Hard to know whether the US could have afforded one, but the matter never came up, because they decisively concluded that they did not want one.

2 Replies

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

oralloy wrote:
They could have had a standing army if they wanted one.

I'm reading THE UNITED STATES: The History of a Republic by Hofstadter, Miller and Aaron and according to that they could not have a standing army because they couldn't agree how to pay for it or how it would be used.

They are incorrect. The Framers did not have a standing army because they feared it would lead to tyranny.

Perhaps the fledgling nation would have had trouble affording it, but things never got to that point because of the strong desire to not have a standing army under any circumstances.

However, after the War of 1812, the thinking of the government changed a bit, and they did set up a standing army. Granted the nation had had a decade or two to get on its feet by that point, but it seems like the ability to pay for a standing army was not a major impediment at that time.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

However, after the War of 1812, the thinking of the government changed a bit, and they did set up a standing army. Granted the nation had had a decade or two to get on its feet by that point, but it seems like the ability to pay for a standing army was not a major impediment at that time.

Even at the beginning of the civil war the standing army of the US was all of ten thousands or so spread all over the place.

We was not into having a large standing army hell the Mexico war of 1840 had the almost total military power of the nation south of the border.

0 Replies

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

oralloy wrote:
They strengthened and protected the militia because they wanted it.

Which begs the question why they wanted it. Obviously they strengthened and protected the militia because they wanted it. Why would they do something they didn't want.

You should have read on to the next line, as it explained why they wanted the militia:

"They felt that having a standing army would bring the same sort of tyranny that they had just defeated, so they wanted to avoid having a standing army at all costs."

spendius wrote:

You're trying to make a virtue out of necessity.

No, I am pointing out that the militia was not at all necessary. It was a choice.

If the existence of the militia was really the necessity that you are pretending, they would never had felt any need to protect and strengthen the militia.

Because were the militia an actual necessity, there would never be any danger of the government disarming or disbanding it.

spendius wrote:

A Federal army under the control of northern states could have enforced the abolition of slavery and increased duties on tobacco, rice and indigo and with southern states being charged taxes to pay for it.

It was out of the question if the 13 states were to remain united. It was militia at a state level or nothing.

Wrong. The emphasis on the militia had nothing to do with slavery.

All the states genuinely feared that if the new federal government had a standing army, it would impose tyranny on them

1 Reply

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

oralloy wrote:
Taking away guns does reduce "gun-related" homicide, as people who would have been killed with guns, are instead killed with other weapons.

Tripe--and here's why. There is a chance with most other weapons for the victim of an attack. Guns are for bushwhackers. Attacking with knives, bombs are very rare, is risky for the attacker. Much more so than with guns.

Funny how gun availability has such a small impact on homicide rates.....

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

Really?

Your's must be the only country in the world where money doesn't have an effect on elections, politics, and governance.

No wonder you're such a Brittanic chauvinist.

Combine this marvelous fact with that really big ferris wheel in London and the UK is clearly the place to be for all who revere freedom.

2 Replies

@McTag,

And I read that everyone in the UK has bad teeth. Amazing what you can learn through reading.

0 Replies

@McTag,

"Freedom shite"

Interesting turn of phrase.

I wonder if our esteemed UK members are willing to admit to the limitations of free speech which they must endure, so that the calumny some of them engage in herein would result in libel verdicts in their country?

Perhaps one of them might relate to us the "reasonable" ways in which their government protected the Olympic brand recently. This wasn't a protection of commercial interests of course, simply defending the spirit of amateurism in sports!

The US has a foundational Bill of Rights unmatched by any country on earth, but who cares? It's all freedom shite.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

No, I am pointing out that the militia was not at all necessary. It was a choice.

For sure. A standing army under federal control was out for the reasons I gave. The only other choices were a militia or nothing. The well off didn't fancy nothing. So a militia officered by the well off was the choice. A bit like whether to cross the road, not cross the road or get r un over,

Quote:

If the existence of the militia was really the necessity that you are pretending, they would never had felt any need to protect and strengthen the militia.

I never said that the militia was a necessity. They could have slugged it out in good old Darwinian fashion. They did do eventually. The militia was a dirty little compromise. A lot of little militias could be controlled. Divide and conquer ****. Let them all think they are free. It keeps them docile. And they were a long way away. No federal army. No nothing. There is only the free choice of militias left. Why bother disarming them when they present no threat.

Quote:

The emphasis on the militia had nothing to do with slavery.

Oh!! Rightie o. An assertion cures all known diseases.

Quote:

All the states genuinely feared that if the new federal government had a standing army, it would impose tyranny on them

Not the ones who wanted one.

But I do understand how difficult it is to persuade somebody who thinks he is Napoleon that he's just an ordinary little powerless nobody.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

Your's must be the only country in the world where money doesn't have an effect on elections, politics, and governance.

On behalf of my fellow countrymen I feel it incumbent on me to say that I have never heard anybody express such a ridiculous viewpoint. We are all well aware that money is the only game there is.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Really?

Your's must be the only country in the world where money doesn't have an

Not to the same extent it does over there. There are strict caps on spending, individual donations. But you knew that, you're just pissed off about NY losing out to London.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

The US has a foundational Bill of Rights unmatched by any country on earth,

Does it ****.

0 Replies

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

oralloy wrote:
No, I am pointing out that the militia was not at all necessary. It was a choice.

For sure. A standing army under federal control was out for the reasons I gave.

No, the reasons you gave had nothing whatsoever to do with the issue.

They did not want a standing army because they feared that the new federal government would become tyrannical if it had a standing army.

spendius wrote:

oralloy wrote:
All the states genuinely feared that if the new federal government had a standing army, it would impose tyranny on them

Not the ones who wanted one.

If anyone wanted the new federal government to have a standing army, such people were very few.

spendius wrote:

But I do understand how difficult it is to persuade somebody who thinks he is Napoleon that he's just an ordinary little powerless nobody.

Napoleon??

Not sure what you mean. The example of tyranny they feared was not based on Napoleon, but rather on England's King James II.

(Hope I'm remembering the right king; I didn't look it up to verify. It'll be the one who was deposed just before the English Bill of Rights.)

1 Reply

Mass Shooting At Denver Batman Movie Premiere

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know