7
   

THE LIE THAT IS LIBERAL

 
 
giujohn
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 20 Sep, 2016 10:55 am
@maxdancona,
I'm not talking about a Civil War on the scale of 1860. And taking up arms against a tyrannical government is not traitorous. The Insurrection I envisioned would take place after the political mechanisms were applied but we were still left with laws that blatantly violated the Bill of Rights such as a wholesale attempt at gun confiscation during a suspension of the 4th 5th or 6th Amendments.

Americans would have two choices in this situation give up their guns or keep them.

Keeping them wouldn't mean a fight. I doubt seriously if the military would be using stealth bombers and tanks against an armed populace for many reasons but primarily it would give the United Nations and governments like Russia and China an excuse to invade the mainland.

The insurrection would not be an assault on Washington DC It would be at the Grassroots level like what occurred in the Battle of Athens in the late forties. Citizens take control at the city county and state levels to resist the wholesale confiscation and with such things as social media and the internet it would easily spread two other communities and hopefully that would bring enough attention to the issue to preclude military strikes directed by the central government. Of course without possession of those arms people would not be in the position to take control at the Grassroots to force the issue.
izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Tue 20 Sep, 2016 12:05 pm
@giujohn,
A tyrannical government is not one that has been democratically elected, nor is it one which steps down at the end of its term in office.

Like most would be terrorists you tell lies and use false definitions to further your poisonous, fascist ideology. You've tried to redefine racism, and now you've got your own perverse definition of tyranny, which basically means anything you don't like.

I'll stick with the accepted definitions thank you very much. You espouse fascist ideology, you're undemocratic and you're starting to sound a lot like Timothy McVeigh, and the people we were fighting against in 1942.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 20 Sep, 2016 12:11 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:
There were all kinds of laws in England from the 1300's on preventing the carrying of weapons.

Laws that were eventually relaxed.


Quote:
In 1541, under the second Tudor king, Henry VIII,
Parliament enacted a stature to stop

“shamefull murthers
roberies felonyes ryotts and routs.”
33 Hen. 8, c. 6, § 1(1541–1542) (Eng.). The statute limited gun ownership to the wealthy—those who “have lands tents rents fees annuityes or Offices, to the yearley value of one hundred Pounds.”

This doesn't mean that commoners of the day had no contact with weapons. Commoners were required to be armed when they served on militia duty and various town security patrols. They were also expected to engage in weekly target practice. The government of the day just wanted to keep control over these weapons when the commoners were not practicing or "on duty".

These restrictions were loosened in later centuries as the right to keep and bear arms was created in the English Bill of Rights.



Interesting article. They overstate their case though.

Note:

"What remains unclear is whether these prohibitions were only enforced during times of suspected affray, thus preventing the people from being armed for only short periods of time, or whether the power to prohibit going armed was inherent with the local constable or sheriff’s authority, and the proclamations served as reminders of the status quo. The evidence available at the turn of the fourteenth century does not provide a clear affirmation, but there is nothing in the historical record to suggest that the local authorities were prohibited from disarming individuals among the public concourse to ensure the public safety."

Lack of evidence that they are wrong is far from evidence that they are right.


Also, when the article covers the case of Sir John Knight, it completely overlooks the fact that the court recognized that "gentlemen" were allowed to go about armed for their own protection, which is the reason why people cite this case in support of gun rights.

"Gentlemen" obviously is a reference to a certain social class, so it did not include everyone in society. But it included a lot more than just the nobility. Apparently the term included anyone who had the right to have their own family coat of arms.


The article did not address Rex v Dewhurst at all, as far as I could see, although perhaps I missed it.


parados wrote:
You gun nuts

Name-calling only demeans your own position.


parados wrote:
sure like to pull quotes out of context and try to use them to support your opinion even if they don't support it.

Can you show any instances of me pulling a quote out of context?


parados wrote:
Rex v Gardner found that a gun wasn't an engine of destruction and wasn't covered under the game law. (the word "gun" being omitted in the act.)

Yes indeed.

Was it your intent to agree with me here?
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 20 Sep, 2016 12:12 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:
And, think about how effective this will be. We have a government that has Tanks, Drones and Stealth Bombers.

An armed insurrection would be an American version of ISIS... people with assault weapons hiding in buildings enforcing their own version of laws while superior military forces would be picking them off with bombs and drones. Accept an armed insurrection in America would be over much more quickly.

The history of guerrilla warfare shows that is it not nearly so easy to defeat resistance fighters.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 20 Sep, 2016 12:14 pm
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:
Where did you look? Up your arse?

I got the US crime statistics directly from the US government, and I got the UK crime statistics directly from the UK government.


izzythepush wrote:
That's a lie, and it's a very stupid lie that only very stupid people believe.

No, it is 100% true that, when I looked up that data, the UK had double our crime rate and triple our violent crime rate.


izzythepush wrote:
Our rate is 0.9 murders per 100,000 people, yours is 3.9.

That's nice. It doesn't have anything to do with overall crime rates or violent crime rates though.


izzythepush wrote:
Ask a grownup to help you with the maths.

I'm the smartest person that you've ever talked with, and by a nearly infinite margin. There is no need to worry about my math skills.


izzythepush wrote:
This is so typical of the fascists who support Trump, they know the facts don't support their nonsense so they just make stuff up, then they have the gall to call others liars. It's pathetic.

The facts back me 100%. I've not made anything up. I've also not called anyone a liar.
izzythepush
 
  4  
Reply Tue 20 Sep, 2016 12:23 pm
@oralloy,
Still trying to peddle the same stupid lie. You may find that living in a fantasy world sure beats reality, but when you try to pass that fantasy off as reality you end up looking really stupid.

Just saying.
High Strangeness
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 20 Sep, 2016 12:54 pm
I root for Trump because muslim atrocities occur on an almost daily basis and he wants to keep them out. If I ever become anti-Trump you can measure me up for a straitjacket..Smile
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Tue 20 Sep, 2016 02:51 pm
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:
Still trying to peddle the same stupid lie.

I doubt that anyone can demonstrate any incorrect claims on my part.


izzythepush wrote:
You may find that living in a fantasy world sure beats reality,

I don't. I have a strong preference for reality.

Well, mostly. I admit to not being very comfortable with the strong probability that the US will get into a nuclear war with China during the Trump Administration. I could end up dying from the fallout. Or living out the rest of my life in some miserable refugee camp because my home is radioactive. Not good.


izzythepush wrote:
but when you try to pass that fantasy off as reality you end up looking really stupid.
Just saying.

Since I'll never attempt to pass fantasy off as reality, I don't really need to worry about it.
0 Replies
 
giujohn
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 20 Sep, 2016 03:28 pm
@izzythepush,
Typical liberal bigoted tactics. Label those who don't share your socialist views as terroristic and fascist.

BTW, in the US we don't live in a political democracy. A government voted in by a democracy is perfectly capable of being tyrannical.
hingehead
 
  4  
Reply Tue 20 Sep, 2016 04:01 pm
@giujohn,
You are priceless!
gooey wrote:
Typical liberal bigoted tactics. Label those who don't share your socialist views as terroristic and fascist.

https://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/60353045.jpg


On a more serious note - I'm having a hard time finding a definition of "political democracy" that the US doesn't fit. Can you tell me what you mean?

I've hunted through:
The Blackwell Dictionary of Sociology
Chambers Dictionary of World History, and;
Routledge Dictionary of Economics

And haven't found anything that defines as anything other than representative democracy. Hoping you can point me in the right direction.
izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Tue 20 Sep, 2016 04:07 pm
@giujohn,
Lots of people don't share my views. Roger for example sees things very differently to me, but I could never describe him as a fascist. He's not. You are.

Whether you can see it or not is immaterial, walks like a duck yada yada.
maxdancona
 
  0  
Reply Tue 20 Sep, 2016 04:09 pm
@izzythepush,
Giujohn and Izzy share similar styles of argument here, even though there political views are quite different.
0 Replies
 
hingehead
 
  4  
Reply Tue 20 Sep, 2016 04:14 pm
@izzythepush,
Roger is my favourite self-confessed conservative on these boards.
parados
 
  4  
Reply Tue 20 Sep, 2016 04:34 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
These restrictions were loosened in later centuries as the right to keep and bear arms was created in the English Bill of Rights.


Are you referring to this part of the English Bill of rights.
Quote:
That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;

You will note it doesn't grant the rights to have arms to non Protestants. It also only allows arms as allowed by law. Since the law didn't allow them to carry arms, it certainly doesn't mean what you are implying.

Quote:
Commoners were required to be armed when they served on militia duty and various town security patrols. They were also expected to engage in weekly target practice.
Citation? I have found several instances of laws that didn't allow anyone not in the employ of the government to carry arms.


Quote:
Lack of evidence that they are wrong is far from evidence that they are right.
Truer words were never spoken. Now about your lack of evidence....
High Strangeness
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 20 Sep, 2016 05:32 pm
Theodore Roosevelt said "A vote is like a rifle, wasted in the wrong hands".
Trump offers America security from muslim infiltration, so a vote for him would be full metal jacketted, but a vote for Hillary would be a blank round..Smile
0 Replies
 
giujohn
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 20 Sep, 2016 10:51 pm
@hingehead,
The U.S. a representative Republic. A democracy is where 51% of the electorate rules.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 20 Sep, 2016 11:26 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:
Are you referring to this part of the English Bill of rights.

Of course I am.


parados wrote:
It also only allows arms as allowed by law. Since the law didn't allow them to carry arms, it certainly doesn't mean what you are implying.

That's not what the courts said.

Rex v. Dewhurst (1820): "A man has a clear right to arms to protect himself in his house. A man has a clear right to protect himself when he is going singly or in a small party upon the road where he is travelling or going for the ordinary purposes of business. But I have no difficulties in saying you have no right to carry arms to a public meeting, if the number of arms which are so carried are calculated to produce terror and alarm."


parados wrote:
Citation?

"Concern to maintain archery went right to the top of English society and dated back to at least 1363, when the first of a succession of ordinances and parliamentary statutes had commanded that Englishmen should spend their Sundays and holidays not in pointless amusements such as football, bowls, tennis and dice, but in shooting at the butts.2"

"Henry VII and Henry VIII defended the longbow with statutes banning the possession of crossbows and handguns by the lower orders; they promoted it with further statutes ordering every householder to keep bows, not only for himself, but for his servants and children, and commanding every adult and adolescent male to use them.4"

"Under Henry VIII proclamations reinforced the message, repeatedly commanding local officials to do all in their power to promote archery and suppress the unlawful games that threatened to supplant it.5 In 1528 Henry drove the point home with a reminder that it was archery practice that …"

http://past.oxfordjournals.org/content/209/1/53.extract


parados wrote:
I have found several instances of laws that didn't allow anyone not in the employ of the government to carry arms.

Militia duty and town watch patrols are not considered as being in the employ of the government???


parados wrote:
Now about your lack of evidence....

Baseless insinuations that I don't provide evidence are hardly conducive to reasonable conversation.
giujohn
 
  0  
Reply Tue 20 Sep, 2016 11:42 pm
IN REGARDS TO THE POLICE SHOOTING IN CHARLOTTE

If the investigation proves that the assailant who was shot by police was in fact armed, then the relatives of this individual and any Witnesses who lied and said he was unarmed should be charged with incitement to Riot.

There needs to be a precedent set whereby these individuals who the press allows to foster lies that inflame the public falsely where riots ensue are not only charged with incitement to Riot but federally charged under the hate crime statutes.

Only then this human garbage and the media that aids and abets them will give pause before spewing their vicious lies.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Sep, 2016 12:10 am
@hingehead,
I feel the same, someone with whom one can agree to differ.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  3  
Reply Wed 21 Sep, 2016 12:38 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:
No, it is 100% true that, when I looked up that data, the UK had double our crime rate and triple our violent crime rate.
And you definitely were comparing apples to apples and oranges to oranges? (Like: in the UK, even shoving someone is recorded as a violent crime.)
Besides that: the law of England and Wales, Scottish law and the Northern Ireland law are different legal systems of statute and common law with different definitions ...
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/17/2019 at 07:02:21