• Quotes Misattributed To Founding Fathers Included In Gun Rights Bill
    68 replies, posted
[QUOTE]A gun-rights bill introduced at the Capitol on Friday includes six quotes from America’s Founding Fathers about the importance of guns to democracy. The measure, sponsored by state Rep. Matt Shea, R-Spokane Valley, would create penalties for public officials who block people from owning or buying guns. [B]About one page of the four-page bill is dedicated to quotes from the Founding Fathers on gun ownership.[/B] [B]But at least three of the quotes – attributed to Thomas Jefferson, George Washington and Alexander Hamilton – aren’t real.[/B][/QUOTE] [URL]http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/politics-government/article58712188.html[/URL] I hate it when people quote me on the internet, claiming I said things that I never actually said. — [B]Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.[/B]
[QUOTE]Another part of the bill seems to prove Godwin’s rule of Nazi analogies, which says that the longer an online discussion (or a bill?) goes on, the more likely it is to bring up Hitler. “... The world has witnessed six million Jews murdered by Adolf Hitler, fifteen million Russians slaughtered by Joseph Stalin, and an estimated sixty million Chinese murdered in communist China, none of whom were allowed to possess firearms,” the bill says.[/QUOTE] lmao
[QUOTE=cdr248;49684980]lmao[/QUOTE] That above quote has nothing to do with guns. Talk about capitalizing on mass-murdering of people to forward your own agenda. Laughable.
[QUOTE=Spetsnaz95;49685064]That above quote has nothing to do with guns. Talk about capitalizing on mass-murdering of people to forward your own agenda. Laughable.[/QUOTE] they largely capitalize on the "founding fathers" thing too - the amorphous blob that is the "founding fathers" would all agree that putting in some minor restrictions on guns leads to tyranny it's an argument from authority that says that re-interpreting or changing the laws set down by a tiny group of aristocrats from the late 18th century is deemed the greatest affront possible - these superhuman beings somehow foresaw the entire future that lay ahead of them and introduced a perfect and flawless political system. when nutters aren't attributing quotes, they are taking them out of context or overusing them or selectively picking and choosing the bits they like
I like how some Conservative politicians are literally as stupid as one's idiot relatives that share obvious bullshit on Facebook.
[QUOTE=Spetsnaz95;49685064]That above quote has nothing to do with guns. Talk about capitalizing on mass-murdering of people to forward your own agenda. Laughable.[/QUOTE] pretty much what anti-gun people do everytime there's a shooting tbh
[QUOTE]“... The world has witnessed six million Jews murdered by Adolf Hitler, fifteen million Russians slaughtered by Joseph Stalin, and an estimated sixty million Chinese murdered in communist China, none of whom were allowed to possess firearms,” the bill says. [/QUOTE] [t]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/43/Posted_Japanese_American_Exclusion_Order.jpg[/t] What keeps back Tyranny is the values of the American people. Not the threat of violence. [editline]6th February 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Bazsil;49685241]pretty much what anti-gun people do everytime there's a shooting tbh[/QUOTE] Exploitation? Are we gonna apply this logic to oil spills? [QUOTE]Those environmentalists are exploiting the suffering of the wildlife and citizens of New Orleans[/QUOTE] Seems pretty nonsensical.
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;49685261][t]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/43/Posted_Japanese_American_Exclusion_Order.jpg[/t] What keeps back Tyranny is the values of the American people. Not the threat of violence. [editline]6th February 2016[/editline] Exploitation? Are we gonna apply this logic to oil spills? Seems pretty nonsensical.[/QUOTE] That's a pretty rubbish comparison.
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;49685261][t]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/43/Posted_Japanese_American_Exclusion_Order.jpg[/t] [/QUOTE] Please don't compare japanese internment to the holocaust, or the crimes of Joseph Stalin or Mao. It was bad, but not NEARLY as bad.
[QUOTE=cdr248;49684980]lmao[/QUOTE] The hilarious part is that the Soviets and Maoists used armed uprisings to create their rule, and the former of which collapsed under unarmed protests (e.g Velvet Revolution)
[QUOTE=*Freezorg*;49685277]That's a pretty rubbish comparison.[/QUOTE] The point being put across is that even in an armed society the government will still be able to do such things if the people allow it. The German government under the Nazi party actually deregulated firearms (aside from Jews).
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;49685261]Exploitation? Are we gonna apply this logic to oil spills? Seems pretty nonsensical.[/QUOTE] its only wrong when the other side does it then i guess
[QUOTE=phygon;49685343]Please don't compare japanese internment to the holocaust, or the crimes of Joseph Stalin or Mao. It was bad, but not NEARLY as bad.[/QUOTE] I don't think he was really comparing them in scale or severity; rather, making a point that in spite of these people living in the country that bangs the "right to bear" arms drum is not immune to committing rather tyrannical actions.
[QUOTE=Bazsil;49685241]pretty much what anti-gun people do everytime there's a shooting tbh[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Bazsil;49685385]its only wrong when the other side does it then i guess[/QUOTE] Can you really not see the fundamental difference between saying that people were massacred because they couldn't own guns and people were massacred because guns are too easy to get? Like, holy shit. I don't even have a horse in this race but I can't even fathom how you can try and defend this opinion.
[QUOTE=EuSKalduna;49685401]I don't think he was really comparing them in scale or severity; rather, making a point that in spite of these people living in the country that bangs the "right to bear" arms drum is not immune to committing rather tyrannical actions.[/QUOTE] There's a difference between being interned and being dragged off en masse to be murdered. I promise you that if our government attempted to enact a genocide on our people, and the group they were targeting had a high % of gun owners, people would be fighting back. Keep in mind, I haven't fully read this bill and as such I don't support or condemn it (although it sounds pretty dumb, given the fake quotes) but that particular part is accurate.
[QUOTE=phygon;49685426]There's a difference between being interned and being dragged off en masse to be murdered.[/QUOTE] except both were still a grave miscarriage of justice, innocent people suffered. the point of the argument is that even in an armed society, there is still tyranny. if the japanese who were being interned fought back against this, what do you think would honestly happen?
I have never seen the quotes in the article. There's plenty of other actual quotes from the founding fathers that support firearm proliferation amongst the common person. For example, Franklin DID say [quote]"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."[/quote] Jefferson DID say, [quote]"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed and that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of press."[/quote] It's dumb that they crammed in a bunch of misattributed quotes in a damn bill, but it's pretty cut and dry that the founding fathers meant the entire populace when creating the 2nd amendment. That, on top of the amendment being analyzed and broken down by actual English experts (not Supreme Court justices) with the result saying the amendment claims all people are the militia and therefore have the right to bear arms, it amazes me how there's people out there who still think it is up to interpretation. I like how people talk about Hitler, saying the Nazi party actually deregulated firearms, but they gotta throw in the (except for with the Jews) as if it doesn't radically turn their point upside down. Would the Jews still have been massecred if they had a bunch of guns? Probably, times were different back then. The advantage of the Nazis was they worked fast, the Jews didn't have time to communicate and form up some kind of resistance even if they wanted to. Also, the process was relatively slow and ramped up, a lot of Jews cooperated at first because the oppression wasn't too severe, by the time they were on a train to a camp it was too late to fight back. Russians massacred by Stalin couldn't fight back because they were untrained. They might have known how to shoot a rifle to hunt, but they didn't know much beyond that. Many didn't even know what a tank was. They were poor, uneducated, untrained, no lines of communication, they didn't know what was happening until it was too late. But ask this question, if the people massacred in Russia had the internet and guns back then, would it have gone so smoothly? Same for the Jews, would they still have been herded like sheep into ovens? Considering a ragtag number of French with stolen, beaten up, and homemade weapons were a thorn in the side of the Axis forces in that theater, the common man with a rifle had more influence than one might think. The point of arming a populace is not to win, it is to resist. Our government could easily oppress us in the grand scheme of things. But there would be resistance. Small pockets, nothing that couldn't be stomped out, but "AMERICAN ARMY MASSACRES OWN PEOPLE," would be on the headlines of newspapers around the world. Would the UN just let us rip our own people apart? What happens when a drone drops a missile on an American school, "DRONE STRIKE KILLS 300 CHILDREN," thinking it was a rebel operations area? How much do you honestly think it would take before the rest of the world rises up against the tyranny? Guns will not tip the scales themselves. They don't have that kind of power. What they do have, however, is the ability to enhance a common man's bravery. There are people out there who would charge a fully armed and geared up soldier with a butter knife if they had to, but that kind of bravery is rare. The average man will not fight unless he has a means of doing so. Give him a rock to throw at a Humvee, he will drop it and comply with orders. Give him a semi-automatic rifle with armor piercing rounds, he is far more likely to bear his teeth and defend his liberty. Will he succeed? Probably not, the odds are against him. But that's the engame to all of this, that's the entire point of the right to bear arms. It is better to have the CHOICE to fight or not than to have it made for you. It puts your life in your hands, you can run, you can comply, or you can fight. Taking arms away and telling people, "Just let them rob/violate/oppress you, they *probably* won't kill you if you don't resist," takes away their choice to have control over their own life. The government will probably win if it wants to oppress us, but we have the right to fight back if we wish. Unarmed populaces are at the mercy of their oppressors.
[QUOTE=MaverickIB;49685668]I have never seen the quotes in the article. There's plenty of other actual quotes from the founding fathers that support firearm proliferation amongst the common person. For example, Franklin DID say Jefferson DID say, It's dumb that they crammed in a bunch of misattributed quotes in a damn bill, but it's pretty cut and dry that the founding fathers meant the entire populace when creating the 2nd amendment. That, on top of the amendment being analyzed and broken down by actual English experts (not Supreme Court justices) with the result saying the amendment claims all people are the militia and therefore have the right to bear arms, it amazes me how there's people out there who still think it is up to interpretation. I like how people talk about Hitler, saying the Nazi party actually deregulated firearms, but they gotta throw in the (except for with the Jews) as if it doesn't radically turn their point upside down. Would the Jews still have been massecred if they had a bunch of guns? Probably, times were different back then. The advantage of the Nazis was they worked fast, the Jews didn't have time to communicate and form up some kind of resistance even if they wanted to. Also, the process was relatively slow and ramped up, a lot of Jews cooperated at first because the oppression wasn't too severe, by the time they were on a train to a camp it was too late to fight back. Russians massacred by Stalin couldn't fight back because they were untrained. They might have known how to shoot a rifle to hunt, but they didn't know much beyond that. Many didn't even know what a tank was. They were poor, uneducated, untrained, no lines of communication, they didn't know what was happening until it was too late. But ask this question, if the people massacred in Russia had the internet and guns back then, would it have gone so smoothly? Same for the Jews, would they still have been herded like sheep into ovens? Considering a ragtag number of French with stolen, beaten up, and homemade weapons were a thorn in the side of the Axis forces in that theater, the common man with a rifle had more influence than one might think. The point of arming a populace is not to win, it is to resist. Our government could easily oppress us in the grand scheme of things. But there would be resistance. Small pockets, nothing that couldn't be stomped out, but "AMERICAN ARMY MASSACRES OWN PEOPLE," would be on the headlines of newspapers around the world. Would the UN just let us rip our own people apart? What happens when a drone drops a missile on an American school, "DRONE STRIKE KILLS 300 CHILDREN," thinking it was a rebel operations area? How much do you honestly think it would take before the rest of the world rises up against the tyranny? Guns will not tip the scales themselves. They don't have that kind of power. What they do have, however, is the ability to enhance a common man's bravery. There are people out there who would charge a fully armed and geared up soldier with a butter knife if they had to, but that kind of bravery is rare. The average man will not fight unless he has a means of doing so. Give him a rock to throw at a Humvee, he will drop it and comply with orders. Give him a semi-automatic rifle with armor piercing rounds, he is far more likely to bear his teeth and defend his liberty. Will he succeed? Probably not, the odds are against him. But that's the engame to all of this, that's the entire point of the right to bear arms. It is better to have the CHOICE to fight or not than to have it made for you. It puts your life in your hands, you can run, you can comply, or you can fight. Taking arms away and telling people, "Just let them rob/violate/oppress you, they *probably* won't kill you if you don't resist," takes away their choice to have control over their own life. The government will probably win if it wants to oppress us, but we have the right to fight back if we wish. Unarmed populaces are at the mercy of their oppressors.[/QUOTE] i don't know if franklin was pro-gun, you're assuming he does based on the fact he mentions "essential liberty", which for much the world does not include the right to firearms
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49685699]i don't know if franklin was pro-gun, you're assuming he does based on the fact he mentions "essential liberty", which for much the world does not include the right to firearms[/QUOTE] That quote is probably the single most misquoted line in all of history. Ben Franklin was in fact criticising the governor of Pennsylvania at that time for vetoing the Assembly in their decision to tax the lands of the Penn family to support frontier security against attacks. The "Liberty" he refers to is the freedom of the Assembly to govern the lands they oversee, and when he speaks of "purchas[ing] a little temporary Safety", he means it quite literally: the governor offered cash to support frontier defence, on the condition that the Assembly acknowledged that they lacked the power to tax the Penn family lands. In other words, Franklin was criticising the governor for attempting to buy safety in exchange for the liberty of self-governance.
Makes sense, since they misquote the founding fathers every time the second amendment is brought up, using an interpretation by the 20th century supreme court to claim that they wanted everyone to have guns because of gubbmint tyranny.
It may not have been spoken in the context of gun control (something that didn't even exist at the time) but it holds true to how people use it nowadays. "We have taken every step in our power, consistent with the just rights of the freemen of Pennsylvania, for their relief, and we have reason to believe, that in the midst of their distresses they themselves do not wish us to go farther." Franklin was criticising the governor for not wanting to pay taxes because taxes had already been pushed to the limit. To go further, to raise taxes, to force conscription, in order to secure the frontier, would be infringing too much on liberty. It wasn't just about money, it was about the concept of sacrificing liberty for safety. At some point, it just isn't worth it, you're giving up liberty which leads to further infringements in the future. Even at that point, Franklin understood the slippery slope concept, how giving up liberty in one aspect leaves you vulnerable to having more liberty taken. Gun owners have seen this time and time again, every time they give ground in "compromise," lawmakers come back a few years later to take more ground. I don't quite agree with your analysis. I have read into it and I don't see anything about the governor offering a large sum of money instead of being taxed. [quote]Such as were inclined to defend themselves but unable to purchase arms and ammunition have, as we are informed, been supplied with both as far as arms could be procured out of monies given by the last assembly for the king's use and the large supply of money offered by this bill might enable the governor to do every thing else that should be judged necessary for their further security if he shall think fit to accept it.[/quote] He was outright saying they needed the tax money from the governor in order to properly defend themselves, because the people were not willing to sacrifice their liberty in order to gain safety. It was a plead, pay taxes so these people don't go undefended. Theoretically, they could have defended themselves without the governor's taxes, but they weren't willing to sacrifice their own liberty to do it. The quote was dropped into what he was saying, it wasn't a reference to the governor, it was a reference to the frontiersmen who needed the money. He was agreeing with them, sacrificing liberty [higher taxes, possibly conscription in this case] for safety is not worth it. So yes, it isn't a reference to firearms. But it remains relevant. Franklin was not in favor of giving up liberty for safety. In this case, it was safety on the frontier, an inherently dangerous place. It's safe to say he wouldn't be for sacrificing an amendment on the Bill of Rights to *potentially* save some lives. For fuck's sake, he didn't even believe in paying more taxes than what is reasonable to save some lives.
so basically they tried to buzzfeed it
[QUOTE=TheJoey;49686876]so basically they tried to buzzfeed it[/QUOTE] 13 ways Democrats are killing America
[QUOTE=MaverickIB;49686851]It may not have been spoken in the context of gun control (something that didn't even exist at the time) but it holds true to how people use it nowadays. "We have taken every step in our power, consistent with the just rights of the freemen of Pennsylvania, for their relief, and we have reason to believe, that in the midst of their distresses they themselves do not wish us to go farther." Franklin was criticising the governor for not wanting to pay taxes because taxes had already been pushed to the limit. To go further, to raise taxes, to force conscription, in order to secure the frontier, would be infringing too much on liberty. It wasn't just about money, it was about the concept of sacrificing liberty for safety. At some point, it just isn't worth it, you're giving up liberty which leads to further infringements in the future. Even at that point, Franklin understood the slippery slope concept, how giving up liberty in one aspect leaves you vulnerable to having more liberty taken. Gun owners have seen this time and time again, every time they give ground in "compromise," lawmakers come back a few years later to take more ground. I don't quite agree with your analysis. I have read into it and I don't see anything about the governor offering a large sum of money instead of being taxed. He was outright saying they needed the tax money from the governor in order to properly defend themselves, because the people were not willing to sacrifice their liberty in order to gain safety. It was a plead, pay taxes so these people don't go undefended. Theoretically, they could have defended themselves without the governor's taxes, but they weren't willing to sacrifice their own liberty to do it. The quote was dropped into what he was saying, it wasn't a reference to the governor, it was a reference to the frontiersmen who needed the money. He was agreeing with them, sacrificing liberty [higher taxes, possibly conscription in this case] for safety is not worth it. So yes, it isn't a reference to firearms. But it remains relevant. Franklin was not in favor of giving up liberty for safety. In this case, it was safety on the frontier, an inherently dangerous place. It's safe to say he wouldn't be for sacrificing an amendment on the Bill of Rights to *potentially* save some lives. For fuck's sake, he didn't even believe in paying more taxes than what is reasonable to save some lives.[/QUOTE] [url="http://franklinpapers.org/franklin/framedVolumes.jsp?vol=6&page=238a"]This[/url] is the letter where his famous quote first appeared. You'll notice that the letter itself was addressed to the Governor, and is essentially a complaint that the Governor kept vetoing bills that the Assembly drafted, particularly bills that sought the taxation of properties. In particular, he took offence to the Governor's offer to pay a one-off sum of money to fund the frontier defence in exchange for exempting estates from being taxed. The reason why the Governor kept doing this was because the Penn family appointed him on the condition that he not allow estates to be taxed. The "essential Liberty" he refers to is thus the liberty of the Assembly to govern the lands in the interest of collective security, and the "little temporary Safety" he speaks of is the temporary safety that a one-off sum of money would bring. It is in no way referring to the liberty and security of the frontiersmen. More analysis [url="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/11/11/liberty-safety-and-benjamin-franklin/"]here[/url], [url="http://www.npr.org/2015/03/02/390245038/ben-franklins-famous-liberty-safety-quote-lost-its-context-in-21st-century"]here[/url], and [url="https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-ben-franklin-really-said"]here[/url].
That's the letter I was pulling from. That analysis simply doesn't make sense when the context of the quote is taking into account. [quote]In fine, we have the most sensible Concern for the poor distressed Inhabitants of the Frontiers. We have taken every Step in our Power, consistent with the just Rights [B][JUST is the keyword, they have done all in their power to the limit of justness, to go further would impose on liberty][/B] of the Freemen of Pennsylvania, for their Relief, and we have Reason to believe, that in the Midst of their Distresses they themselves do not wish us to go farther[B][The Freemen of Pennsylvania do not want more taxation in exchange for safety, they are at their maximum limit][/B]. Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.[B][Obviously referencing what was just said prior, the people do not want to sacrifice their liberty (more taxation) in order to purchase safety][/B] Such as were inclined to defend themselves, but unable to purchase Arms and Ammunition, have, as we are informed, been supplied with both, as far as Arms could be procured, out of Monies given by the last Assembly for the King’s Use; and the large Supply of Money offered by this Bill, might enable the Governor to do every Thing else that should be judged necessary for their farther Security, if he shall think fit to accept it.[/quote] Those "analysis" you're pointing to don't break anything down. They are doing just what a lot of what you're accusing pro-gunners or whatever using it are doing, ripping it out of context and applying it to the big picture. Sure, his letter might have been scalding the governor for literally purchasing safety and imposing on the liberty of the Assembly and their ability to govern, but in the context of the subject matter the letter was on at the point of dropping the quote it was referring to the people of Pennsylvania and how they had been pushed to their limit, they were not willing to sacrifice any more in order to acquire safety, they would rather be in danger without the governor's money than pay more taxes.
Honestly, the situation of 250 years ago isn't really equivalent to the situation now. We don't need another armed uprising, the second amendment is a little outdated. They didn't have fully automatic killing machines in the 1770s. There needs to be some restrictions.
Just remember don't get too high and mighty about this country. We were founded on literal terrorists by modern definition.
[QUOTE=LTJGPliskin;49687301]Honestly, the situation of 250 years ago isn't really equivalent to the situation now. We don't need another armed uprising, the second amendment is a little outdated. They didn't have fully automatic killing machines in the 1770s. There needs to be some restrictions.[/QUOTE] Automatic and semi-automatic weapons did exist back then. The entire point of arming a populace is to give them a means of fighting against a professional military (domestic or foreign). It is not for hunting, it is not for home defense. It isn't about an armed uprising, it is about an armed resistance. If someone imposes on your unalienable rights, the 2nd amendment is the one that allows you to defend said rights yourself. Not the police. Not the government. You have the right to make that choice for yourself. I honestly really can't stand the "Well all they had were muskets so that's what it applies to," or whatever argument. Automatic weapons systems existed already. The musket was the modern day equivalent of the M16 or AK variant rifle, an infantryman's weapon. It was the most prolific and efficient weapon of the era, and they wanted the common man to have them too. You can infer, if they intended for the people to bear arms equal to what professional infantry troops were using, that the people should be able to match an infantryman's firepower as weapons evolve.
[QUOTE=MaverickIB;49687894]Automatic and semi-automatic weapons did exist back then.[/QUOTE] do you even know what an automatic firearm is? because there was not a single thing matching the description of one until a century after the american war of independence [quote]I honestly really can't stand the "Well all they had were muskets so that's what it applies to," or whatever argument. Automatic weapons systems existed already. The musket was the modern day equivalent of the M16 or AK variant rifle, an infantryman's weapon. It was the most prolific and efficient weapon of the era, and they wanted the common man to have them too. You can infer, if they intended for the people to bear arms equal to what professional infantry troops were using, that the people should be able to match an infantryman's firepower as weapons evolve.[/quote] this displays an ignorance of how wars were fought and how guns were actually used back in the late 18th century muskets were inaccurate and often unreliable weaponry that were only useful when used by massed and disciplined troops, who were organised by commanders who made use of strategy and tactical movement. quite a few commanders at the time were of the school that the bayonet charge was more important than the massed firearm volleys the firearms which broke this rule were typically expensive or difficult to use pieces utilized by trained specialists, and rarely by common people. the american war wasn't won by farmers and militias using muskets to take potshots at redcoats - it was with well-armed professional soldiery who were disciplined and made good use of arms and tactics
[QUOTE=Spetsnaz95;49685064]That above quote has nothing to do with guns. Talk about capitalizing on mass-murdering of people to forward your own agenda. Laughable.[/QUOTE] No different then the anti-gun folks sadly, they usually ride on the backs of dead kids though...both extremes of each side make everyone look bad.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.