Starbucks Sticks to Its Guns

[Fu Mei]

...We are regressing as a nation, civically. By letting cynical politicians divide us with pandering to our fears and discounting the patirotism of some because they don't toe the ideological line we weaken ourselves and fail to see common ground where it exists......

In your opinion, when did this nation begin to regress, civically?

[Fu Mei]

I don't know how many people have actually read the Declaration, let alone the Constitution. But, fwiw, among the "long train of abuses", the writers of the Declaration did not see fit to mention taking the colonists guns as one of them.......

However, the writers of the Constitution thought it important enough to address the issue.

[Fu Mei]

Interesting article concerning the death of George Washington.

http://gwpapers.virginia.edu/articles/wallenborn.html

[Steve James]

Your point was about the revolution and the British attempt to disarm the populace. Wrong. They wanted to disarm the militias, such as those at Concord and in the other rebellious countries. That has never been unusual, and it's ridiculous to compare it will "gun control" today.

[Fu Mei]

Your point was about the revolution and the British attempt to disarm the populace. Wrong. They wanted to disarm the militias, such as those at Concord and in the other rebellious countries. That has never been unusual, and it's ridiculous to compare it will "gun control" today.

No. My point was in regards to:

The British were never after "rifles" ........

I believe that there were instances in which there was confiscation of arms from the populace. I believe one such instance involved the confiscation of arms from individuals in the city of Boston.

I have no desire to debate the word "militia" or the different variations of capitilization found within the 2nd Amendment.

Further more I do not believe that it is ridiculous to study this period in history and its relevance to the topic of gun control. The desire to control arms during this period were shared by both Great Britian and the colonists who favored independence.

History has shown what happens when the supply of guns and ammunition is limited for a certain group of people by another.

[Steve James]

I believe that there were instances in which there was confiscation of arms from the populace. I believe one such instance involved the confiscation of arms from individuals in the city of Boston.

Believe what you will. The British armed Loyalist colonists and Indians and Africans who were enslaved but wanted freedom. Read Lord Dunmore's proposal of, iinm, 177??

I have no desire to debate the word "militia" or the different variations of capitilization found within the 2nd Amendment.

Not the point. Militias were what the British wanted to disarm ... quite naturally for them under the circumstances. Militias were formed to have a force of armed men who were prepared to defend their communities ... first from the Indians, then, after the "long train of abuses" to protect themselves from their oppressors. G. Washington was head (?) of the Virginia Militia before the war. If the British wanted to disarm the colonists, they would have done so long before Concord and Lex (Btw, all that is verifiable).

Further more I do not believe that it is ridiculous to study this period in history and its relevance to the topic of gun control.

It is ridiculous to compare the oppression of the British to the colonists to the situation today. If some invading enemy came in and tried to make sure that the populace was unarmed, that'd be different. You might be referring to Shay's Rebellion, but that was the American Founding Fathers who were behind the taking away of guns. Oh, what the hey, though most of my diss was on this period, I'll wiki it.

Shays' Rebellion was an armed uprising in central and western Massachusetts (mainly Springfield) from 1786 to 1787. The rebellion is named after Daniel Shays, a veteran of the American Revolution who led the rebels, known as "Shaysites" or "Regulators". Most of Shays' compatriots were poor farmers angered by crushing debt and taxes. Failure to repay such debts often resulted in imprisonment in debtor's prisons or the claiming of property by the government.
Seeking debt relief through the issuance of paper currency and lower taxes, they attempted to prevent the courts from seizing property from indebted farmers by forcing the closure of courts in western Massachusetts. The participants in Shays' Rebellion believed they were acting in the spirit of the Revolution and modeled their tactics after the crowd activities of the 1760s and 1770s, using "liberty poles" and "liberty trees" to symbolize their cause.[1]
The rebellion started on August 29, 1786, and by January 1787, over 1000 Shaysites had been arrested. A militia that had been raised as a private army defeated an attack on the federal Springfield Armory by the main Shaysite force on February 3, 1787. There was a lack of an institutional response to the uprising, which energized calls to reevaluate the Articles of Confederation and gave strong impetus to the Philadelphia Convention which began in May 17, 1787. Shays' Rebellion produced fears that the Revolution’s democratic impulse had gotten out of hand.

Anyway, I wouldn't use that as historical precedent for the disarming of the "tea ... partyers" today. Though, it would certainly be reasonable to do so.

The desire to control arms during this period were shared by both Great Britian and the colonists who favored independence.

History has shown what happens when the supply of guns and ammunition is limited for a certain group of people by another.

Maybe there's a typo because those last two statements throw me. I don't think that the "colonists who favored independence" had the "desire to control arms." The colonists who favored independence needed ammunition badly. They melted statues of King George.

But, no you're wrong about "what happens when..." History has shown that people have gotten their freedom when they were not well-armed and had far less resources and experience than their opponent/oppressor. The American experiment is just that; there has Never been a country like this. Yet, I don't think that everyone else in the world is "unfree" --or even less safe. Ya gotta have a gun ... and the will. And, if you have the will, you take the other guy's gun. That's Uncle Ho 101.

[Steve James]

'Cuz every American should be familiar with his history:

In November 1775 Lord Dunmore issued a controversial proclamation, later known as Lord Dunmore's Proclamation. Faced with rebellion and short of troops, Virginia's royal governor called on all able-bodied men to assist him in the defense of the colony, including enslaved Africans belonging to rebels. He promised slave recruits freedom in exchange for service in the British Army.
...I do require every Person capable of bearing Arms, to resort to His MAJESTY'S STANDARD, or be looked upon as Traitors to His MAJESTY'S Crown and Government, and thereby become liable to the Penalty the Law inflicts upon such Offenses; such as forfeiture of Life, confiscation of Lands, &. &. And I do hereby further declare all indented Servants, Negroes, or others, (appertaining to Rebels,) free that are able and willing to bear Arms, they joining His MAJESTY'S Troops as soon as may be, for the more speedily reducing this Colony to a proper Sense of their Duty, to His MAJESTY'S Crown and Dignity.--- Lord Dunmore's Proclamation, November 7, 1775[7]
Within a month about 800 formerly enslaved African Americans had escaped to Norfolk, Virginia to enlist. It is likely that far more heard the call and would have joined if not for the fear of reprisal.[4][8]
Outraged Virginia slave owners decreed that runaway slaves would be executed. They also engaged in a smear campaign of the British Army's promises, stating that slaves who escaped to the British would be sold to sugar cane plantations in the West Indies. Despite this, many slaves were willing to risk their lives for a chance at freedom.[9]
Dunmore's Proclamation was the first mass emancipation of enslaved people in American history.[4] The 1776 Declaration of Independence refers obliquely to the Proclamation by citing as one of its grievances, that King George III had 'excited domestic Insurrections among us'.[10]

[gzregorz]

Nice...



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ayMZyKL ... re=popular