Re: Gun Control means Crime Control

On 12/9/22 12:27 PM, Ubiquitous wrote:
> On 12/9/2022 9:08 AM, !Jones wrote:
>> On Fri, 9 Dec 2022 08:20:36 -0800, in talk.politics.guns Ubiquitous
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/9/2022 6:06 AM, !Jones wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 8 Dec 2022 21:43:44 -0800, in talk.politics.guns
>>>> OrigInfoJunkie <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 12/8/2022 8:40 PM, !Jones wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 8 Dec 2022 17:55:07 -0800, in talk.politics.guns Mike
>>>>>> Colangelo <air@vatican_.con> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2) Defend the country
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bullshit.  The militia was worthless for that.  No militias 
>>>>>>> fought after Bunker
>>>>>>> Hill.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Even there, they got lost in the darkness and climbed the wrong hill.
>>>>>> The Union Jack flew from Bunker Hill by 1500 that day and our militia
>>>>>> found themselves in easy range of the naval artillery from the 
>>>>>> British
>>>>>> fleet in the harbor.
>>>>>
>>>>> The important point to note is that the slaver states would not 
>>>>> even *send*
>>>>> their militias to fight in the war for independence, because they 
>>>>> were too
>>>>> afraid of slave revolts, and they needed their militias to suppress 
>>>>> those.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, I was going to mention that; however, I was waiting until someone
>>>> on the other side raised the American Revolution as an example.
>>>>
>>>> In general, militias don't travel well.  They're effective on their
>>>> home turf in that they can muster much more quickly than a standing
>>>> army... that, and they tend to stand and actually fight when their
>>>> stance is on their doorstep.  Send 'em 50 miles away, though, and
>>>> they're useless.
>>>
>>> Exactly.
>>>
>>>     Second, the principal instrument for slave control was the 
>>> militia. In the
>>>     main, the South had *refused to commit her militias* to the war 
>>> against the
>>>     British during the American Revolution out of fear that, if the 
>>> militias
>>>     departed, slaves would revolt. But while the militias were 
>>> effective at slave
>>>     control, they had proved themselves unequal to the task of 
>>> fighting a
>>>     professional army. Bunker Hill was the last militia victory 
>>> during the
>>>     Revolution. The Continental Army (aided by the French Navy) won 
>>> the war.
>>>
>>> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/24/opinion/second-amendment-slavery-james-madison.html 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     But Virginia had serious, slave-related concerns. And she did not 
>>> agree to
>>>     ratify without testimony by two high-profile, Anti-Federalist 
>>> Virginians,
>>>     Patrick Henry and George Mason. They spoke about Article I, 
>>> Section 8,
>>>     authorizing Congress to call forth, organize, arm, and discipline 
>>> the
>>>     militia. Henry addressed, not what Congress might do in this 
>>> capacity, but
>>>     what Congress might not do. He argued that, should Congress 
>>> neglect or refuse
>>>     to arm or discipline their “last and best defense,” the militia 
>>> would be
>>>     useless. Mason, approached from a different angle. He proposed an 
>>> amendment
>>>     limiting the power of Congress to summon militia from one state 
>>> to another
>>>     without the approval of the legislature of the state from which 
>>> the militia
>>>     was ordered to march. Mason alleged, “On real emergencies, this 
>>> [legislative]
>>>     consent will never be denied.”
>>>
>>>     Such arguments raise the question, against what dangers or 
>>> threats were Henry
>>>     and Mason implying Virginia’s militia was a “last and best defense?”
>>>     Certainly not foreign military invasion. Against organized 
>>> military forces,
>>>     Virginia’s militia had proven feckless. When charged by the 
>>> British at
>>>     Camden, South Carolina in 1780, *the militia fled*. The unstated 
>>> implication —
>>>     obvious then and now — was this: a Congress sympathetic to a 
>>> Northern
>>>     abolitionist agenda could disarm or even remove from the state 
>>> the armed
>>>     police force standing between free whites and black slaves. This 
>>> could not
>>>     stand.
>>>
>>> https://medium.com/the-new-leader/debunking-the-mythic-origin-of-the-second-amendment-bfe06dc06946 
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Yes, I am familiar with Mason's proposal... that, from the 1788
>> Richmond debates.  The important point is that their topic wasn't the
>> militia, but control of their slaves.  They settled on Madison's more
>> generic statement; however, ironically, it wasn't about rights or
>> freedom... it was a flat denial of the same.
> 
> Well, it was about their militia because that was essential to control 
> of their slaves.
> 
>>
>> And, in the long run, they were right.  In the Civil War, as soon as
>> slaves were freed by Union forces, many of them volunteered to fight
>> against their former masters.  (The Confederate forces summarily
>> executed most they captured.  See: The Battle of Ft. Pillow.)
> 
Showing that having a gun was how you protect your life and liberty... 
and if it's essential to keeping you alive, your arms can protect that 
property as well.

Which is leaving us right back at the point the discussion started, 
those arms are sought after by escaping slaves fighting against their 
slavery and those arms are denied to them by Southern Democrats who seek 
to enslave people and keep them enslaved.

That very point that slaves are issue is just a distraction from the 
CORE ISSUE WHICH IS LIBERTY.

Those who seek yo take your RIGHT to arms want you enslaved and those 
who want to keep the RIGHT to keep and bear arms are the ones that are 
the targets of that enslavement.

Interesting it's STILL DEMOCRATS and their ancestors WHO WANT TO DO THE 
ENSLAVING BY MAKING IT ILLEGAL FOR US TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS.


-- 
-Reality Matters-