Shootings In Las Vegas

I'd think that the 2nd Amendment reflects the consensus on the issue. It's vague (perhaps intentionally so) and subject to interpretation, and has in fact been interpreted different ways at different times in our history. So for you to try translate gun control issues nearly 200-odd years hence through bite-size (and, in some cases, fake) quotes from the founders...well, it's pretty easy to see where I might have a problem with it.
 
So, I'll turn the question around to you: the quotes you posted are either fabricated or elided far beyond their original context (usually pertaining to the hot contemporary debate over citizen militias vs. standing armies). Why is it that you don't care to figure out what is legit and what is not?
 
I'm nearly certain I've asked you directly 2 different times in this thread which ones were not legit

Ok. Seems to me that if you're posting the quotes without knowledge of the source material, the burden of proof would be on you. However, if you insist:

“Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence.” – George Washington

Complete fabrication.

“The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.” – Alexander Hamilton.


An out-of-context elision of Hamilton's words when actually arguing for select corps of militia for national defense. In context:
"But so far from viewing the matter in the same light with those who object to select corps as dangerous, were the Constitution ratified and were I to deliver my sentiments to a member of the federal legislature on the subject of a militia establishment, I should hold to him, in the substance, the following discourse:

"The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness of military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country to an amount which, calculating upon the present members of the people, would not fall far short of a million pounds. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured.

Little more can reasonably be aimed at with respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped;

and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.

But though the scheme of disciplining the whole nation must be abandoned as mischievous or impracticable; yet it is a matter of the utmost importance that a well-digested plan should, as soon as possible, be adopted for the proper establishment of the militia. The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate size, upon such principles as will really fit it for service in case of need. By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it.

This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens"

“I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.” – Thomas Jefferson.

Paraphrase of Jefferson quoting a Latin proverb in a letter to Madison. Zero relevance to the issue.

“To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them.” – George Mason.

Forty years ago, when the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual was to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually, by totally disusing and neglecting the militia.
George Mason, June 14, 1788, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, 2nd ed. (1861), Jonathan Elliot, v. 3, p. 380.

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe.” – Noah Webster.

Pretty much in-context as an argument against keeping a standing army.

“Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of other countries, whose leaders are afraid to trust them with arms.” – James Madison.

Elided from a much longer passage about state militias (NOT individuals with guns) being a check against potential tyranny of an standing army. Basically an argument that a standing army would not be a threat to newly-won liberty.

“Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” – Benjamin Franklin.

Legit quote from Franklin's letters, also completely out of context. Zero relevance to guns.

“A free people ought to be armed.” – George Washington.

Again, elided. The full quote:

"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a Uniform and well digested plan is requisite: And their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories, as tend to render them independent others, for essential, particularly for military supplies.

The proper establishment of the Troops which may be deemed indispensible, will be entitled to mature consideration. In the arrangements which may be made respecting it, it will be of importance to conciliate the comfortable support of the Officers and Soldiers with a due regard to economy."

Once again, a discussion of militias, and debatable as to the individual right.

“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” – Thomas Jefferson.

"No Freeman shall be debarred the use of arms in his own lands or tenements."

From early drafts of the Virgina constitution, not adopted. And, again, predicated on the the debate between a standing army vs. state militias.

Triggered?
 
I think calling these quotes fake was a bit of a leap, no?

Almost every quote in human history could have an additional slant if paired in context with the full quote. That's fine, but I'd suppose the Reddit dude didn't want to type out paragraphs of literature.

I disagree with you about certain things being irrelevant to the discussion (for example the Franklin quote), but to each their own.

I guess you feel you "got me" here... And if that's your takeaway, then fine. But.my point of posting what I did was to remind people that the founders were in favor of arms. If you want to disagree with them, thats your right.
 
Gosh, other than being entirely fabricated.having no relevance to the subject, or being taken completely out of context, I can't imagine why I'd have a problem.
 
To answer your implied question about the founders: yes, I think they had a robust debate about standing armies vs state militias, that none of it says what you imply that it does, and that very little directly bears on contemporary conversations about the individual right to own firearms unimaginable to the framers.
 
This is an interesting read about Breitbart/Bannon, the alt-right, Yiannopolous, and the Mercer family. Kinda confirms what's been speculated about that little game.

[tw]916066675715379200[/tw]
 
Julio that was a great read. Milo actually came off quite a bit better there than I expected. The writers seemed fixated on his asking for input from white supremacists, but it seems more impactful to me that he then stripped out the nazi rhetoric. He played them to get a feel for their feeling of resentment, but removed the racism. He's a genius.

I would also disagree with the caption Buzzfeed used for the article. Milo wasn't "smuggling" Nazi and racist ideas into the alt right, he was actually filtering them all out, and even mocking them to his inner circle.

My takeaway from that article is that the neo nazis and racists are so desperate for someone to listen to them that they fell for a young gay Jew who is married to a black man and makes fun of them while basically stealing their audience and distilling the toxins out of their message. Remarkable.
 
founding fathers talking about being armed when it was a musket and a sword to go to battle for and you might get one shot a minute

but yeah, sure, go with quoting (and fake quoting) them talking about those weapons when comparing em to what happens today

makes total sense

i wish we would scrutinize gun buying as much as we do a drivers license

i wish we would regulate the **** out of guns like the 2nd amendment tells us to do

but you know, i guess the founding fathers couldn't be wrong on guns. i mean, they only wrote a document that only viewed white males as being worthy of the document so yeah, they were like perfect
 
founding fathers talking about being armed when it was a musket and a sword to go to battle for and you might get one shot a minute

but yeah, sure, go with quoting (and fake quoting) them talking about those weapons when comparing em to what happens today

makes total sense

i wish we would scrutinize gun buying as much as we do a drivers license

i wish we would regulate the **** out of guns like the 2nd amendment tells us to do

but you know, i guess the founding fathers couldn't be wrong on guns. i mean, they only wrote a document that only viewed white males as being worthy of the document so yeah, they were like perfect

Again... let's work on writing coherent sentences

Anywho, we get it... you hate the FF.

But guns are heavily regulated. Why do you think they are not? There is a hilarious video of a Chicago reporter who wanted to prove how easy it would be to get an AR-15, but he was turned away due to a failed background check due to a history of alcoholism and domestic abuse.

 
Julio that was a great read. Milo actually came off quite a bit better there than I expected. The writers seemed fixated on his asking for input from white supremacists, but it seems more impactful to me that he then stripped out the nazi rhetoric. He played them to get a feel for their feeling of resentment, but removed the racism. He's a genius.

I would also disagree with the caption Buzzfeed used for the article. Milo wasn't "smuggling" Nazi and racist ideas into the alt right, he was actually filtering them all out, and even mocking them to his inner circle.

My takeaway from that article is that the neo nazis and racists are so desperate for someone to listen to them that they fell for a young gay Jew who is married to a black man and makes fun of them while basically stealing their audience and distilling the toxins out of their message. Remarkable.

I do think the headline may have been a tad overcooked, but not much. I also think you're being far too charitable. The article does a good job underpinning exactly what it laid out in the thesis.

The takeaway for me--and it's direct confirmation of something I've written about speculatively before--is that he distilled the message and sanitized it by removing the overt slurs and Nazi stuff, but only enough to avoid the obvious appearance of the most odious stuff on that side of things. That allows him to play the "I'm not a racist--YOU'RE the racist!" "I'm not intolerant, the left is!" cards, which he does, quite effectively. The fact is, though, if he's being tutored by and workshopping his message with some of the folks mentioned in the article, he can't really escape the accusations of all of the -isms. Those people and organizations are white nationalists and xenophobes, etc. Making fun of obvious 1488ers doesn't really get it done when your purpose is transmitting the message of the Sauciers, Aurenheimers, Yarvins, etc. When his editor expressed concern about citing American Renaissance and Taki's, all that made it into the article was a weak disclaimer that those sites "had been accused of racism." So, sure, split hairs about who's a Nazi and who isn't, but note that the folks he is asking for advice about sanitizing the Nazi message are self-described white nationalists.

I mean, are we really patting him on the back for hiring kids who tweet anti-semetic garbage, then cautioning them to not to do "Jew stuff" in their feeds when they're under his aegis? That's just protecting his brand and maintaining deniability. How about the karaoke party with Devin Saucier and Richard Spencer. Like, dude, you're too nearsighted to see the Nazi salutes?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jaw
Oh he's an ass and a troublemaker for sure, and he was absolutely created to skirt around the edges of blatant racism. I'm simply impressed by how thoroughly he played so much of the white supremacist movement, given who and what he is.
 
all of that and you took away "i hate the founding fathers"

lol

are you showing me the chicago video cause their regulations work and we should adopt their laws on guns nationwide?
 
Back
Top