Gun control debate (merged)

[Rasputin_Vol]

I’m not currently in a Union.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

I meant a serious example of a large scale problem where militias have been necessary. this obscurity is presented as a norm rather than an exception, and that’s funny

Whiskey Rebellion - Wikipedia

Throughout Western Pennsylvania counties, protesters used violence and intimidation to prevent federal officials from collecting the tax. Resistance came to a climax in July 1794, when a US Marshal arrived in western Pennsylvania to serve writs to distillers who had not paid the excise. The alarm was raised, and more than 500 armed men attacked the fortified home of tax inspector General John Neville. Washington responded by sending peace commissioners to western Pennsylvania to negotiate with the rebels, while at the same time calling on governors to send a militia force to enforce the tax. Washington himself rode at the head of an army to suppress the insurgency, with 13,000 militiamen provided by the governors of Virginia, Maryland, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. The rebels all went home before the arrival of the army, and there was no confrontation. About 20 men were arrested, but all were later acquitted or pardoned. Most distillers in nearby Kentucky were found to be all but impossible to tax—in the next six years, over 175 distillers from Kentucky were convicted of violating the tax law.[4] Numerous examples of resistance are recorded in court documents and newspaper accounts.[5]

The Whiskey Rebellion demonstrated that the new national government had the will and ability to suppress violent resistance to its laws, though the whiskey excise remained difficult to collect. The events contributed to the formation of political parties in the United States, a process already under way. The whiskey tax was repealed in the early 1800s during the Jefferson administration. Historian Carol Berkin argues that the episode in the long run strengthened American nationalism because the people appreciated how well Washington handled the rebels without resorting to tyranny.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

I meant a serious example of a large scale problem where militias have been necessary. this obscurity is presented as a norm rather than an exception, and that’s funny

Battle of Athens (1946) - Wikipedia

The Battle of Athens (sometimes called the McMinn County War) was a rebellion led by citizens in Athens and Etowah, Tennessee, United States, against the local government in August 1946. The citizens, including some World War II veterans, accused the local officials of predatory policing, police brutality, political corruption, and voter intimidation.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

I meant a serious example of a large scale problem where militias have been necessary. this obscurity is presented as a norm rather than an exception, and that’s funny

Black Panther Party - Wikipedia

Oakland patrols of police
The initial tactic of the party utilized contemporary open-carry gun laws to protect Party members when policing the police. This act was done in order to record incidents of police brutality by distantly following police cars around neighborhoods.[52] When confronted by a police officer, Party members cited laws proving they had done nothing wrong and threatened to take to court any officer that violated their constitutional rights.[53] Between the end of 1966 to the start of 1967, the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense's armed police patrols in Oakland black communities attracted a small handful of members.[54] Numbers grew slightly starting in February 1967, when the party provided an armed escort at the San Francisco airport for Betty Shabazz, Malcolm X's widow and keynote speaker for a conference held in his honor.[55]

The Black Panther Party's focus on militancy was often construed as open hostility,[56][57] feeding a reputation of violence even though early efforts by the Panthers focused primarily on promoting social issues and the exercise of their legal right to carry arms. The Panthers employed a California law that permitted carrying a loaded rifle or shotgun as long as it was publicly displayed and pointed at no one.[50] Generally this was done while monitoring and observing police behavior in their neighborhoods, with the Panthers arguing that this emphasis on active militancy and openly carrying their weapons was necessary to protect individuals from police violence. For example, chants like "The Revolution has come, it's time to pick up the gun. Off the pigs!",[58] helped create the Panthers' reputation as a violent organization.

 

[C-south]

I call bs too. Either in one or works for one.

 

[OHvol40]

Whiskey Rebellion - Wikipedia

Throughout Western Pennsylvania counties, protesters used violence and intimidation to prevent federal officials from collecting the tax. Resistance came to a climax in July 1794, when a US Marshal arrived in western Pennsylvania to serve writs to distillers who had not paid the excise. The alarm was raised, and more than 500 armed men attacked the fortified home of tax inspector General John Neville. Washington responded by sending peace commissioners to western Pennsylvania to negotiate with the rebels, while at the same time calling on governors to send a militia force to enforce the tax. Washington himself rode at the head of an army to suppress the insurgency, with 13,000 militiamen provided by the governors of Virginia, Maryland, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. The rebels all went home before the arrival of the army, and there was no confrontation. About 20 men were arrested, but all were later acquitted or pardoned. Most distillers in nearby Kentucky were found to be all but impossible to tax—in the next six years, over 175 distillers from Kentucky were convicted of violating the tax law.[4] Numerous examples of resistance are recorded in court documents and newspaper accounts.[5]

The Whiskey Rebellion demonstrated that the new national government had the will and ability to suppress violent resistance to its laws, though the whiskey excise remained difficult to collect. The events contributed to the formation of political parties in the United States, a process already under way. The whiskey tax was repealed in the early 1800s during the Jefferson administration. Historian Carol Berkin argues that the episode in the long run strengthened American nationalism because the people appreciated how well Washington handled the rebels without resorting to tyranny.

You must have missed the part where we were speaking of recent history, thanks for the Wikipedia entry though lol

 

[0nelilreb]

Haha. I'm just posting relevant news in the relevant threads. But damn, I'm pretty surr people on here would be quicker to defend their guns that their wives. But I guess I shouldn't be surprised (see Ted Cruz).

You are posting lies hoping for a reaction . 298 million Americans support this bill ?

 

[Grand Vol]

I meant a serious example of a large scale problem where militias have been necessary. this obscurity is presented as a norm rather than an exception, and that’s funny

You really have zero idea of what a militia is, do you?

 

[Grand Vol]

You must have missed the part where we were speaking of recent history, thanks for the Wikipedia entry though lol

I see. You move the field gold posts just a little further.

You do realize without militias, the country wouldn't exist, right?

 

[Jxn Vol]

I see OHvol40 is still trying to ask folks to pick up his turd from the clean end.

I would rather debate chicken vs egg or trees falling alone in an empty forest.

 

[McDad]

Can tyranny exist where there is consent? This seems to be at the root of discussion and where OH erred in his premise. As an employee, I have a consensual relationship with my employer. The employer cannot do anything which forcefully robs me of my liberty or inalienable rights. I must chose to acquiesce if (when) they attempt to deny me liberty. The same cannot be said of governments in history and in control currently. Governments can and do deny liberty for all manner of reasons.
For the record, I have no issue with people banding together as a union to demand things from their employer. I also have no issue with the employer firing every employee who unionizes and hiring in new employees. Employees can band together. Employers can terminate the relationship.
Now, here's the ugly side of it all, what happens when the employer brings in new or temporary employees? Is their liberty threatened or denied by the unionized employees?

 

[OHvol40]

I see. You move the field gold posts just a little further.

You do realize without militias, the country wouldn't exist, right?

Actually if you read through, that’s exactly what was being referenced from the beginning... goalposts weren’t moved, it was just a kick that went wide right.

 

[Grand Vol]

Actually if you read through, that’s exactly what was being referenced from the beginning... goalposts weren’t moved, it was just a kick that went wide right.

No, it seems like you'd prefer to focus mainly on the "militia" word in the 2A, not even understanding the original intent of the Constitution, and completely ignore the comma (as Louder pointed out) and the "right of the people" portion.

Frankly, you're not even worth having the debate with.

 

[Rickyvol77]

I don't think he realizes that he's making an argument against government when he points out that corporations own government.

He’s not the sharpest tool in the shed

 

[OHvol40]

Can tyranny exist where there is consent? This seems to be at the root of discussion and where OH erred in his premise. As an employee, I have a consensual relationship with my employer. The employer cannot do anything which forcefully robs me of my liberty or inalienable rights. I must chose to acquiesce if (when) the attempt to deny me liberty. The same cannot be said of governments in history and in control currently. Governments can and do deny liberty for all manner of reasons.
For the record, I have no issue with people banding together as a union to demand things from their employer. I also have no issue with the employer firing every employee who unionizes and hiring in new employees. Employees can band together. Employers can terminate the relationship.
Now, here's the ugly side of it all, what happens when the employer brings in new or temporary employees? Is their liberty threatened or denied by the unionized employees?

I am 2 generations removed from employer tyranny. As my family and everyone in their region experienced it (a coal mining region) 2-3 employers exercised a complete monopoly of the region. The employers controlled every available job, every consumer good, every logistical/transportation aspect, the entire real estate market, and the currency (company notes). This created a situation where the employee-employer agreement was not a choice. If you wanted to survive, you worked for the company in control (and most didn’t have the resources to relocate to find different employment opportunities).

This pressure cooker created the necessity for organized labor to fight off monopolistic tyranny. Now, today’s America is certainly not an industrial economy as it was in the 20th century, we are a post-industrial service based economy. The unions of last century also made a lot of headway in setting standards and getting labor laws passed that protect people from the conditions experienced previously, but that doesn’t make us immune from the crushing effects of monopolies and wealth is being consolidated into fewer and fewer hands just as it was back then. Corporations and the super wealthy, arguably, have more influence over elected officials today than any other time in American history, always threatening labor laws that have been put in place. Maintaining the power of unionization is the most effective tool that workers have to fend off potential tyranny from extremely large and powerful employers.

Unions aren’t perfect, just like any other organization, but their basic purpose still remains relevant.

 

[OHvol40]

No, it seems like you'd prefer to focus mainly on the "militia" word in the 2A, not even understanding the original intent of the Constitution, and completely ignore the comma (as Louder pointed out) and the "right of the people" portion.

Frankly, you're not even worth having the debate with.

I know it can be frustrating not steering the conversation in the direction that you prefer. Maybe someone else would be willing to do that for you.

 

[C-south]

I am 2 generations removed from employer tyranny. As my family and everyone in their region experienced it (a coal mining region) 2-3 employers exercised a complete monopoly of the region. The employers controlled every available job, every consumer good, every logistical/transportation aspect, the entire real estate market, and the currency (company notes). This created a situation where the employee-employer agreement was not a choice. If you wanted to survive, you worked for the company in control (and most didn’t have the resources to relocate to find different employment opportunities).

This pressure cooker created the necessity for organized labor to fight off monopolistic tyranny. Now, today’s America is certainly not an industrial economy as it was in the 20th century, we are a post-industrial service based economy. The unions of last century also made a lot of headway in setting standards and getting labor laws passed that protect people from the conditions experienced previously, but that doesn’t make us immune from the crushing effects of monopolies and wealth is being consolidated into fewer and fewer hands just as it was back then. Corporations and the super wealthy, arguably, have more influence over elected officials today than any other time in American history, always threatening labor laws that have been put in place. Maintaining the power of unionization is the most effective tool that workers have to fend off potential tyranny from extremely large and powerful employers.

Unions aren’t perfect, just like any other organization, but their basic purpose still remains relevant.

Except unions are part of the very tyranny you claim to hate. They’re in the pockets of the corporations and politicians.

 

[OHvol40]

Except unions are part of the very tyranny you claim to hate. They’re in the pockets of the corporations and politicians.

And our policy on gun ownership isn’t perfect either, that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t exist. Please see my last sentence in the quoted post for a referenced response to your comment.

 

[McDad]

I am 2 generations removed from employer tyranny. As my family and everyone in their region experienced it (a coal mining region) 2-3 employers exercised a complete monopoly of the region. The employers controlled every available job, every consumer good, every logistical/transportation aspect, the entire real estate market, and the currency (company notes). This created a situation where the employee-employer agreement was not a choice. If you wanted to survive, you worked for the company in control (and most didn’t have the resources to relocate to find different employment opportunities).

This pressure cooker created the necessity for organized labor to fight off monopolistic tyranny. Now, today’s America is certainly not an industrial economy as it was in the 20th century, we are a post-industrial service based economy. The unions of last century also made a lot of headway in setting standards and getting labor laws passed that protect people from the conditions experienced previously, but that doesn’t make us immune from the crushing effects of monopolies and wealth is being consolidated into fewer and fewer hands just as it was back then. Corporations and the super wealthy, arguably, have more influence over elected officials today than any other time in American history, always threatening labor laws that have been put in place. Maintaining the power of unionization is the most effective tool that workers have to fend off potential tyranny from extremely large and powerful employers.

Unions aren’t perfect, just like any other organization, but their basic purpose still remains relevant.

Unless your family 2 generations ago did not have legs and therefore an inability to relocate themselves, they did not experience tyranny. They experienced the consequence of choice. They retained their choice. The employer did not steal their choice.

I've already stated I have no problems with people joining together and demand things of their employer. I also fully support the employer to fire everyone and hire new or move to another location. Do you support the two groups and their right to act in their own interests equally?

 

[OHvol40]

Unless your family 2 generations ago did not have legs and therefore an inability to relocate themselves, they did not experience tyranny. They experienced the consequence of choice. They retained their choice. The employer did not steal their choice.

I've already stated I have no problems with people joining together and demand things of their employer. I also fully support the employer to fire everyone and hire new or move to another location. Do you support the two groups and their right to act in their own interests equally?

Again, most didn’t have the means to relocate entire households from the Ohio Valley to a place like Detroit or Chicago for gainful employment (both of which were experiencing the same kind of monopolistic tyranny themselves... out of the frying pan and into the fire so to speak).

I support a employer’s right to fire people at will, as long as unions are also unfettered.

 

[McDad]

Again, most didn’t have the means to relocate entire households from the Ohio Valley to a place like Detroit or Chicago for gainful employment (both of which were experiencing the same kind of monopolistic tyranny themselves... out of the frying pan and into the fire so to speak).

I support a employer’s right to fire people at will, as long as unions are also unfettered.

Your opinion on giving people an excuse to not relocate and my opinion on people giving up their own self determination will never be resolved. I'm at peace with that reality.

Do you support legal recourse against union employees preventing, harassing, and harming other employees to work the jobs they are striking against?

 

[0nelilreb]

Again, most didn’t have the means to relocate entire households from the Ohio Valley to a place like Detroit or Chicago for gainful employment (both of which were experiencing the same kind of monopolistic tyranny themselves... out of the frying pan and into the fire so to speak).

I support a employer’s right to fire people at will, as long as unions are also unfettered.

Horse pucky ... you don’t have to move entire households . Men and women from the south went to work in cities Detroit and Chicago in when the jobs were nonexistent. We watch men and women walk and catch rides for thousands of miles with nothing but what they can carry just to get to our southern border everyday . There’s always a way .

 

[Rickyvol77]

Actually owning a firearm and joining a Union are both choices. Both are, and should be, maintained as pillars of this society.

Joining a union isn’t a choice in some places if you want a job there. Which is the point.

 

[Rickyvol77]

There already are "universal background checks"

 

[NorthDallas40]

There already are "universal background checks"

That’s a euphemism for private party transactions but the lying sacks of **** cannot outright say that.