7 ms·

It makes more sense in context, take Patrick Henry's words in 1775 to understand what liberty and the preservation of constitutional rights means to Americans.

It makes more sense in context, take Patrick Henry's words in 1775 to understand what liberty and the preservation of constitutional rights means to Americans. "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" or Thomas Jefferson in 1787: "We have had 13. states independent 11. years. there has been one rebellion. that comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. what country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? let them take arms. the remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. what signify a few lives lost in a century or two? the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. it is it’s natural manure."

coldtea 7y ago
That was at a time when wars were fought with such arms, and the police had the same. Heck, that was true for 100+ years afterwards still. Now the police even has tanks and army level guns, and the army of course has 1000x the resources, airplanes, drones, etc. And of course, at the time the states were indeed independent and fighting fiercely for that. Now (and ever after the Civil War) it's all a charade, from what I understand, and it's all as the Federal government says, not really a union of independent states (as independent countries), but a state divided in N prefectures that just happen to be called states...
- invalidOrTaken 7y ago
  All the more reason to preserve what is left, then.
  - coldtea 7y ago
    It is said that "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results.". I'd say this idea, that after you are guaranteed worse results, you should double down, is even more insane. If anything, what I wrote is all the more reason to find new strategies that don't involve "we'll fight them with guns". Besides who'll do the fighting? The kind of people that have guns are in more in favor of fascism and army rule than those who don't. So all it takes to get them on the side of the opressors it's to sell it to them as army control, as opposed to "big government" control.
    - tomschlick 7y ago
      > The kind of people that have guns are in more in favor of fascism and army rule than those who don't. So all it takes to get them on the side of the opressors it's to sell it to them as army control, as opposed to "big government" control. I feel like you have never talked to a gun owner before. Though they may lean towards the pro police/pro military side, they absolutely would not bow to the government implementing some kind of mass martial law. Lastly, our military swears an oath to the people and the constitution, not the government. Every Soldier, Sailor, Airman, Marine, and Guardsman is bound by oath to refuse unlawful orders. Any hint of stuff like you're talking about would lead to mass revolt within military ranks themselves. Militias would form, and armaments would be taken from the military's caches to launch a resistance.
      - coldtea 7y ago
        >I feel like you have never talked to a gun owner before. Though they may lean towards the pro police/pro military side, they absolutely would not bow to the government implementing some kind of mass martial law. That's what they pay lip service too. In practice the huge majority are chickens, when they're not pro-army (and the first to cheer for an actual martial law, as long it was done by favorable politicians to them). >Lastly, our military swears an oath to the people and the constitution, not the government. Every Soldier, Sailor, Airman, Marine, and Guardsman is bound by oath to refuse unlawful orders. Yeah, good luck with that if push comes to shove.
        EForEndeavour 7y ago
        Well put. Second-amendment gun fanatics dwell so intently on their fantasies of bravely exchanging fire with government soldiers, when in fact their government has figured out how to oppress people in less physical and more effective ways than direct military action could ever achieve.
    - jki275 7y ago
      Have you ever met a gun owner? Most do not want government overreach, hate facism(the real definition, not the “any Trump supporter” definition the left made up last year), and would outright revolt over a military dictatorship.
- word-reader 7y ago
  In your reading, guns used to be able to preserve liberty, but now they're irrelevant because the state security forces can just brutally crush any resistance with their superior firepower? That's not good rhetoric, and it's not even true! Just look at the success all those tanks and airplanes and trillions of dollars had in Afghanistan, for example. I also disagree with the finer points of "guns means freedom", but I don't think yours is a valid argument.
  - coldtea 7y ago
    >Just look at the success all those tanks and airplanes and trillions of dollars had in Afghanistan, for example. Because the average law abiding, fast-food fed Joe Public is gonna fight a full on war? Or get guns, support, and people to come join "the cause" from abroad? Or have any advantage over the government forces in "knowing the area"?
- solidsnack9000 7y ago
  Wars are still fought with such arms. It's important to remember that many of the civilians who are proponents of the 2nd Amendment were trained by the military and fought in recent wars; and understand full well what it means to prosecute a modern war.
  - EForEndeavour 7y ago
    This constant obsession about the US government potentially launching overt, ground-based military action against its own people makes me envision a doomsday prepper who invests tons of resources into a fallout shelter, but rides a motorcycle without a helmet or something. The risk assessment just doesn't make sense to me at all. Get with the times: our governments oppress and control us in ways that don't require open conflict. The 1860s are gone forever. Disclaimer: I've never owned a gun, and I have no military or government experience.
    - solidsnack9000 7y ago
      Given what happened in New Orleans, many aspects of prepping (the food and water and all that) are not that stupid. Only have to be without food or water or security once to be dead forever.
      - JetSpiegel 7y ago
        I would consider starving in New Orleans despite the resources of the US Military being available government oppression.
madhadron 7y ago
> It makes more sense in context I disagree, especially with these quotations, which are disingenuous. Patrick Henry was a firebrand. His words were meant to incite violence and insurrection for the financial advantage of the order of people to which he belonged. The Jefferson letter you are quoting[1] doesn't mean what you imply with how you quote it. The real meaning, if you use the sentences right before that, says that some part of the population is always going to be ignorant and misinformed and discontent in proportion to that, and that it's better they rebel openly so they can be corrected, patted on the head, and sent home instead of stewing silently. From that point of view, the people should be minimally armed so this could be accomplished with as little bloodshed as possible. It's also fraught to impute anything about constitutional matters to Jefferson, since he regarded a constitution perpetuated more than a generation or two as a form of tyranny. The scholarship on Sparta has been pretty thoroughly revised over the past few decades. Any reference to Sparta rooted before that is of at best suspect legitimacy. [1]: https://thefederalistpapers.org/founders/jefferson/thomas-jefferson-letter-to-william-stephens-smith-11-13-1787 https://thefederalistpapers.org/founders/jefferson/thomas-je...

coldtea 7y ago

That was at a time when wars were fought with such arms, and the police had the same. Heck, that was true for 100+ years afterwards still. Now the police even has tanks and army level guns, and the army of course has 1000x the resources, airplanes, drones, etc. And of course, at the time the states were indeed independent and fighting fiercely for that. Now (and ever after the Civil War) it's all a charade, from what I understand, and it's all as the Federal government says, not really a union of independent states (as independent countries), but a state divided in N prefectures that just happen to be called states...

invalidOrTaken 7y ago
All the more reason to preserve what is left, then.
- coldtea 7y ago
  It is said that "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results.". I'd say this idea, that after you are guaranteed worse results, you should double down, is even more insane. If anything, what I wrote is all the more reason to find new strategies that don't involve "we'll fight them with guns". Besides who'll do the fighting? The kind of people that have guns are in more in favor of fascism and army rule than those who don't. So all it takes to get them on the side of the opressors it's to sell it to them as army control, as opposed to "big government" control.
  - tomschlick 7y ago
    > The kind of people that have guns are in more in favor of fascism and army rule than those who don't. So all it takes to get them on the side of the opressors it's to sell it to them as army control, as opposed to "big government" control. I feel like you have never talked to a gun owner before. Though they may lean towards the pro police/pro military side, they absolutely would not bow to the government implementing some kind of mass martial law. Lastly, our military swears an oath to the people and the constitution, not the government. Every Soldier, Sailor, Airman, Marine, and Guardsman is bound by oath to refuse unlawful orders. Any hint of stuff like you're talking about would lead to mass revolt within military ranks themselves. Militias would form, and armaments would be taken from the military's caches to launch a resistance.
    - coldtea 7y ago
      >I feel like you have never talked to a gun owner before. Though they may lean towards the pro police/pro military side, they absolutely would not bow to the government implementing some kind of mass martial law. That's what they pay lip service too. In practice the huge majority are chickens, when they're not pro-army (and the first to cheer for an actual martial law, as long it was done by favorable politicians to them). >Lastly, our military swears an oath to the people and the constitution, not the government. Every Soldier, Sailor, Airman, Marine, and Guardsman is bound by oath to refuse unlawful orders. Yeah, good luck with that if push comes to shove.
      - EForEndeavour 7y ago
        Well put. Second-amendment gun fanatics dwell so intently on their fantasies of bravely exchanging fire with government soldiers, when in fact their government has figured out how to oppress people in less physical and more effective ways than direct military action could ever achieve.
  - jki275 7y ago
    Have you ever met a gun owner? Most do not want government overreach, hate facism(the real definition, not the “any Trump supporter” definition the left made up last year), and would outright revolt over a military dictatorship.
word-reader 7y ago
In your reading, guns used to be able to preserve liberty, but now they're irrelevant because the state security forces can just brutally crush any resistance with their superior firepower? That's not good rhetoric, and it's not even true! Just look at the success all those tanks and airplanes and trillions of dollars had in Afghanistan, for example. I also disagree with the finer points of "guns means freedom", but I don't think yours is a valid argument.
- coldtea 7y ago
  >Just look at the success all those tanks and airplanes and trillions of dollars had in Afghanistan, for example. Because the average law abiding, fast-food fed Joe Public is gonna fight a full on war? Or get guns, support, and people to come join "the cause" from abroad? Or have any advantage over the government forces in "knowing the area"?
solidsnack9000 7y ago
Wars are still fought with such arms. It's important to remember that many of the civilians who are proponents of the 2nd Amendment were trained by the military and fought in recent wars; and understand full well what it means to prosecute a modern war.
- EForEndeavour 7y ago
  This constant obsession about the US government potentially launching overt, ground-based military action against its own people makes me envision a doomsday prepper who invests tons of resources into a fallout shelter, but rides a motorcycle without a helmet or something. The risk assessment just doesn't make sense to me at all. Get with the times: our governments oppress and control us in ways that don't require open conflict. The 1860s are gone forever. Disclaimer: I've never owned a gun, and I have no military or government experience.
  - solidsnack9000 7y ago
    Given what happened in New Orleans, many aspects of prepping (the food and water and all that) are not that stupid. Only have to be without food or water or security once to be dead forever.
    - JetSpiegel 7y ago
      I would consider starving in New Orleans despite the resources of the US Military being available government oppression.

madhadron 7y ago

> It makes more sense in context I disagree, especially with these quotations, which are disingenuous. Patrick Henry was a firebrand. His words were meant to incite violence and insurrection for the financial advantage of the order of people to which he belonged. The Jefferson letter you are quoting[1] doesn't mean what you imply with how you quote it. The real meaning, if you use the sentences right before that, says that some part of the population is always going to be ignorant and misinformed and discontent in proportion to that, and that it's better they rebel openly so they can be corrected, patted on the head, and sent home instead of stewing silently. From that point of view, the people should be minimally armed so this could be accomplished with as little bloodshed as possible. It's also fraught to impute anything about constitutional matters to Jefferson, since he regarded a constitution perpetuated more than a generation or two as a form of tyranny. The scholarship on Sparta has been pretty thoroughly revised over the past few decades. Any reference to Sparta rooted before that is of at best suspect legitimacy. [1]: https://thefederalistpapers.org/founders/jefferson/thomas-jefferson-letter-to-william-stephens-smith-11-13-1787 https://thefederalistpapers.org/founders/jefferson/thomas-je...