Domestic Terrorism again

[byco42]

Note this is the transcript of the address from a University based organization.
https://millercenter.org/the-presid.../january-8-1790-first-annual-message-congress



What is the source of this quotation Byco?

I should also note that the Fred Smith Library for the studies of George Washington states the quote you provided is inaccurate.

https://www.mountvernon.org/library/digitalhistory/digital-encyclopedia/article/spurious-quotations/

I concede that this quote is not accurate.

Here's one in an address to the House in 1790.

"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 on others, for essential, particularly for military supplies."

 

[Spartanmack]

So everyone should have their own nuclear arsenal then, right? idiot.

exactly because like I already said, I support the current ban on automatic weapons and I support banning bump stocks so logically, it follows that I support everyone having unfettered access to any and all weapons including weapons of mass destruction.

...Assault weapons (fully automatic rifles) are already illegal, and I'm all for that. I'm also on board with universal background checks, mental health checks and banning bump stocks. I don't have strong feelings one way or the other on high capacity magazines. But if we're talking about banning weapons that won't make a difference just to please misinformed "spineless wimps" and idiots who buy into it because they are insecure and scoring cut-and-paste debate points in "culture wars" makes them feel better about themselves (e.g. you), I'm totally against that. I'm also against a federal registry and things like public disclosure of private gun ownership (gun maps).

this is all you ever do - mischaracterize the opposition so you can dismiss them offhand and hurl insults, then whine about name calling when someone merely points out how stupid you are. You are so weak.

 

[Spartanmack]

I checked... not only did he form an army to crush the Whiskey Tax protestors, he personnally lead it.

George Washington was a Tyrant!!!!1111

did he disarm the population?

 

[byco42]

I think that MC is being facetious, but he also did leave out selected elements of the story.

 

[Spartanmack]

A "liberal activist supreme court justice" first appointed to the federal bench by noted bleeding heart liberal President Richard M. Nixon, and later nominated for the Supreme Court by libtard faggot President Gerald Ford... right?

That's right. Ford also appointed Kennedy so he has a record of appointing less than conservative justices. Also, Stevens became more liberal as he got older (probably early onset dementia). From his Wikipedia page:

His Segal?Cover score, a measure of the perceived liberalism/conservatism of Court members when they joined the Court, places him squarely on the conservative side of the Court. However, a 2003 statistical analysis of Supreme Court voting patterns found Stevens the most liberal member of the Court.

Here's a link to that study:

http://pooleandrosenthal.com/the_unidimensional_supreme_court.htm

it scores Stevens as more liberal than RBG for crying out loud! But, but, but Nixon and Ford appointed him, he can't be liberal!


You really should do a little research and fact checking before you arrogantly post these things you think are mic droppers but end up making you look like a jackass.

 

[Spartanmack]

I think that MC is being facetious, but he also did leave out selected elements of the story.

I picked up on the hyperbole and was being (semi) sarcastic in my response challenging his point - forming an army says nothing about Washington's position on the 2nd Amendment.

 

[Michchamp]

did he disarm the population?

Well, he formed and lead an army to kill them if they resisted federal authority, and in the event they more or less peacefully submitted when he got there, but if he seized their arms after they surrendered, there's nothing in the wikipedia article about it, so I assume not. Since they were farmers who actually used their rifles to hunt, it probably would've been a bad move politically... he got what he wanted: they paid their taxes and federal authority was preserved.

But the fact that he didn't disarm them is evidence that in the 21st century, we should be able to buy weapons capable of slaughtering dozens whenever we want. You got me there.

 

[Michchamp]

That's right. Ford also appointed Kennedy so he has a record of appointing less than conservative justices. Also, Stevens became more liberal as he got older (probably early onset dementia). From his Wikipedia page:

Here's a link to that study:

http://pooleandrosenthal.com/the_unidimensional_supreme_court.htm

it scores Stevens as more liberal than RBG for crying out loud! But, but, but Nixon and Ford appointed him, he can't be liberal!


You really should do a little research and fact checking before you arrogantly post these things you think are mic droppers but end up making you look like a jackass.

no need to research this; I know the score: if a judge shamelessly holds to whatever the GOP wants at that moment, even if it's inconsistent with what they said that morning at breakfast, they're "principled men of justice" or "strict textualists"... and if they add 2+2 and declare it equals 4 when the GOP said it should equal 5, then they're "ACTIVIST JUDGES," libtard beta cucks, etc.

 

[tinselwolverine]

Allow me to clarify.


The purpose of the second amendment was to ensure the US had a supply of armed/trained men in firearms in case of another war with the British. The underlying cause was at that time the young nation did not have sufficient wealth to maintain a large standing army.


Considering that the US has the most powerful military in the world, the second amendment is no longer applicable for its intended purpose.



You could even say, OBSOLETE.



Hence the point of the joke. As the British are not coming, nor is anyone else.

You do know that there have been two invasions by the British since the Constitution ratified, don?t you?

There was the War of 1812, and then there was the British Invasion of the 1960s.

The first one, 2nd Amendment advocates helped repel; the next one-not so much.

 

[Spartanmack]

Note this is the transcript of the address from a University based organization.
https://millercenter.org/the-presid.../january-8-1790-first-annual-message-congress



What is the source of this quotation Byco?

I should also note that the Fred Smith Library for the studies of George Washington states the quote you provided is inaccurate.

https://www.mountvernon.org/library/digitalhistory/digital-encyclopedia/article/spurious-quotations/

Here's some quotes from founding fathers on the right, often the need to bear arms. It's from a pro gun website with "buckeye" in the url so it may traumatize, if not trigger some readers here but the quotes I did check seem to be verified...

https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/gun-quotations-founding-fathers

Jefferson seems to have been the most vocal...

No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787

What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

I don't see specific mention of the purpose being protection from external threats in any of them.

 

[Spartanmack]

no need to research this; I know the score: if a judge shamelessly holds to whatever the GOP wants at that moment, even if it's inconsistent with what they said that morning at breakfast, they're "principled men of justice" or "strict textualists"... and if they add 2+2 and declare it equals 4 when the GOP said it should equal 5, then they're "ACTIVIST JUDGES," libtard beta cucks, etc.

that's right - it's not his record that counts, it's who appointed him, no need to dig any further. you give up too easily. you're going to have to do better - of course you can't and won't because as you've demonstrated time and again, you're lazy and dishonest and think that insults are the best way to "win the internets." I've said it before and I'm sure I'll say it again - you are one pathetic loser.

 

[Spartanmack]

Well, he formed and lead an army to kill them if they resisted federal authority, and in the event they more or less peacefully submitted when he got there, but if he seized their arms after they surrendered, there's nothing in the wikipedia article about it, so I assume not. Since they were farmers who actually used their rifles to hunt, it probably would've been a bad move politically... he got what he wanted: they paid their taxes and federal authority was preserved.

But the fact that he didn't disarm them is evidence that in the 21st century, we should be able to buy weapons capable of slaughtering dozens whenever we want. You got me there.

well, the fact that the whiskey rebellion happened and Washington quashed it by force clearly indicates Washington didn't support the right to bear arms for any reason other than defense against foreign invaders by the military even though none of his actions say anything about his position - you got me there.

that was sarcasm of course - it's not the fact that Washington didn't disarm the populace during the Whiskey Rebellion that prevents Congress from putting excessive, ineffective limits on law abiding citizens' right to own guns. It's the Second Amendment that does that.

 

[byco42]

The Whisky Rebellion was not "quashed". The miscreant whisky makers acquiesced to the presence of Washington and the 13,000 volunteer militia who signed up for the purpose of ending it. The Whisky rebels were in some cases belligerent and violent, in virtually all resisting the tax. Even some of the militia was conscripted, and there was resistance against that practice. The tax was difficult to enforce and was repealed by Jefferson in 1801.

 

[tinselwolverine]

The Whisky Rebellion was not "quashed". The miscreant whisky makers acquiesced to the presence of Washington and the 13,000 volunteer militia who signed up for the purpose of ending it. The Whisky rebels were in some cases belligerent and violent, in virtually all resisting the tax. Even some of the militia was conscripted, and there was resistance against that practice. The tax was difficult to enforce and was repealed by Jefferson in 1801.

Yeah, whiskey will do that to some people.

 

[Spartanmack]

Never touch the stuff - most people have their bad liquor experience with tequila, mine was whiskey (Canadian Club) at 15 years old. Could hardly be in the same room with an open bottle without feeling sick all the way through college. Of course, that may have had something to do with the college whiskey being the whiskey equivalent of Milwaukee's Best or Goebel. Either way, I never developed a tasted for it.

 

[Spartanmack]

in case Gulo still wonders why I usually don't waste time posting facts or data rather than just heaping ridicule and scorn on the moronic things mc posts.

A "liberal activist supreme court justice" first appointed to the federal bench by noted bleeding heart liberal President Richard M. Nixon, and later nominated for the Supreme Court by libtard faggot President Gerald Ford... right?

That's right (edit: although I wouldn't use such vile, disgusting and bigoted language). Ford also appointed Kennedy so he has a record of appointing less than conservative justices. Also, Stevens became more liberal as he got older (probably early onset dementia). From his Wikipedia page:

Here's a link to that study:

http://pooleandrosenthal.com/the_unidimensional_supreme_court.htm

it scores Stevens as more liberal than RBG for crying out loud! But, but, but Nixon and Ford appointed him, he can't be liberal!

You really should do a little research and fact checking before you arrogantly post these things you think are mic droppers but end up making you look like a jackass.

no need to research this; I know the score: if a judge shamelessly holds to whatever the GOP wants at that moment, even if it's inconsistent with what they said that morning at breakfast, they're "principled men of justice" or "strict textualists"... and if they add 2+2 and declare it equals 4 when the GOP said it should equal 5, then they're "ACTIVIST JUDGES," libtard beta cucks, etc.

 

[tinselwolverine]

Never touch the stuff - most people have their bad liquor experience with tequila, mine was whiskey (Canadian Club) at 15 years old. Could hardly be in the same room with an open bottle without feeling sick all the way through college. Of course, that may have had something to do with the college whiskey being the whiskey equivalent of Milwaukee's Best or Goebel. Either way, I never developed a tasted for it.

I?m still working having my first one of those.

I don?t think Canadian Club is supposed to be horrible right got stuff, although I suppose at 15 they could definitely have a deleterious effect.

I don?t remember their ever being an open bottle of whiskey in the classroom at any point during college, let alone all through it.

Must be a Spartan thing.

 

[sggatecl]

You do know that there have been two invasions by the British since the Constitution ratified, don?t you?

There was the War of 1812, and then there was the British Invasion of the 1960s.

The first one, 2nd Amendment advocates helped repel; the next one-not so much.

All you need is love.

 

[tinselwolverine]

All you need is love.

Well, as long as I don?t have it, I can?t get no satisfaction.

 

[Spartanmack]

I?m still working having my first one of those.

I don?t think Canadian Club is supposed to be horrible right got stuff, although I suppose at 15 they could definitely have a deleterious effect.

I don?t remember their ever being an open bottle of whiskey in the classroom at any point during college, let alone all through it.

Must be a Spartan thing.

it had nothing to do with the quality - CC definotely isnt rot gut booze. it had everything to do with the quantity, and the chaser. At 15 yeara old, 115 lbs i drank a pint of it straight chasing it w/ wine coolers. things did not go well for me that night or the next day.

i was referring to my college years. I know most of the fun at uofm happens in the classroom and doesn't involve actual fun. When i was at MSU, it had a thriving social scene where lots of fun was had outside the classroom. that fun often involved alcohol (frequently cheap and lower quality alcohol).>