Petition to Save Piers Morgan

[bojack]

@BiggusDickus

I’m struggling to equate the concept of privately owning guns to protect against big government, and supporting taxes for small government to have guns.

Piers Morgan thinks that “privately owning guns to protect against big government” = “supporting taxes for small government to have guns?” Or ?

[Kavalan]

Why for the love of sweet Jesus are y’all talking about guns?!!

[BiggusDickus]

@bojack

@BiggusDickus

I’m struggling to equate the concept of privately owning guns to protect against big government, and supporting taxes for small government to have guns.

Piers Morgan thinks that “privately owning guns to protect against big government” = “supporting taxes for small government to have guns?” Or ?

I have no idea what Piers Morgan thinks, other than his comments.

I do have an idea about what you have posted in the past. Correct me if I am wrong, but you support private gun ownership partly to protect individual citizens against the government. At the same time you support taxes paying for government military spending.

Doesn’t add up to me. I’m only messing with you, btw. You’re not dissimilar to some trans women are women argument. Just a different angle.

[bojack]

@BiggusDickus

Correct me if I am wrong, but you support private gun ownership partly to protect individual citizens against the government. At the same time you support taxes paying for government military spending.

I support private gun ownership by US citizens because it’s a civil right. Full stop. I support paying taxes for national security, including for government military spending. While the US Constitution is open to endless speculation, I don’t see any contradiction at all in my stance on the second amendment.

I have no idea what the trans vs trans woman angle is, or what you mean. I can only hope I’m not being insulted in some way I don’t follow.

[BiggusDickus]

OK, other than being a civil right why do you support private gun ownership? Which part of the Constitution do you back?

[bojack]

@BiggusDickus

Which part of the Constitution do you back?

Not sure, but I think you maybe see this as a kind of one-dimensional, sliding scale thing, where full, unrestricted ownership of firearms by private citizens is on the same end of the scale with “no standing army.” On the other end of the scale is “Standing army at all times” and no private ownership by US citizens of firearms. Is this close to your meaning? Are you asking me to pick a dot on that scale?

[Charlie_Jack]

@BiggusDickus

Just musing on the issue of guns.

I’m struggling to equate the concept of privately owning guns to protect against big government, and supporting taxes for small government to have guns.

Well, I think a case can be made that deadly weapons are the bane of human existence.

But the U. S. idea of an armed citizenry goes back quite a ways. Here are some snippets that I hope will help a little (but I don’t expect them to carry the day–italics are mine):

The Battles of Lexington and Concord were the first military engagements of the American Revolutionary War.

. . .

About 700 British Army regulars in Boston, under Lieutenant Colonel Francis Smith, were given secret orders to capture and destroy Colonial military supplies reportedly stored by the Massachusetts militia at Concord.

–from Wikipedia, “Battles of Lexington and Concord”

Battles of Lexington and Concord - Wikipedia

Tenth,

That no standing Army shall be Kept up in time of Peace unless with the consent of three fourths of the Members of each branch of Congress, nor shall Soldiers in Time of Peace be quartered upon private Houses without the consent-of the Owners.-

. . .

Twelfth

Congress shall never disarm any Citizen unless such as are or have been in Actual Rebellion.

–from “Ratification of the Constitution by the State of New Hampshire; June 21, 1788”

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/ratnh.asp

17th. That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated militia composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free state. That standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to Liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by the civil power.

–“Ratification of the Constitution by the State of North Carolina; November 21, 1789”

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/ratnc.asp

17th That the people have a right to keep and bear arms, that a well regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing arms, is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free state; that the militia shall not be subject to martial law except in time of war, rebellion or insurrection; that standing armies in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and ought not to be kept up, except in cases of necessity; and that at all times the military should be under strict subordination to the civil power; that in time of peace no soldier ought to be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, and in time of war, only by the civil magistrate, in such manner as the law directs.

–from “Ratification of the Constitution by the State of Rhode Island; May 29, 1790”

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/ratri.asp

That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, including the body of the People capable of bearing Arms, is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State;

That the Militia should not be subject to Martial Law except in time of War, Rebellion or Insurrection.

That standing Armies in time of Peace are dangerous to Liberty, and ought not to be kept up, except in Cases of necessity; and that at all times, the Military should be under strict Subordination to the civil Power.

–from “Ratification of the Constitution by the State of New York; July 26, 1788”

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/ratny.asp

Seventeenth, That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated Militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State. That standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the Community will admit; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to and governed by the Civil power.

–from “Ratification of the Constitution by the State of Virginia; June 26, 1788”

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/ratva.asp

[BiggusDickus]

@bojack

@BiggusDickus

Which part of the Constitution do you back?

Not sure, but I think you maybe see this as a kind of one-dimensional, sliding scale thing, where full, unrestricted ownership of firearms by private citizens is on the same end of the scale with “no standing army.” On the other end of the scale is “Standing army at all times” and no private ownership by US citizens of firearms. Is this close to your meaning? Are you asking me to pick a dot on that scale?

Yes, I am. Does arming oneself against government equate with paying a government to have more arms?

[Charlie_Jack]

@BiggusDickus

Does arming oneself against government equate with paying a government to have more arms?

Good point. It’s a pickle, it is.

[Brianjones]

His interviews with serial killers were shite supposedly.

Oh look another gun thread…zzzzzzzzzzzzz

[bojack]

@BiggusDickus

Does arming oneself against government equate with paying a government to have more arms?

It can, yes. If you’re saying that it seems a little silly to supply and equip the government with the latest in armaments while simultaneously allowing US citizens to own the latest in armaments, I can understand. It seems like a lot of guns.

But yeah, that’s what I believe the US Constitution says. The military can use those weapons outside the US (war), but if they use them inside the US against citizens (say to take control of government) then citizens should be equipped to resist.

In the case where there are foreign armies inside the US, it’s obviously not a good situation for them.

[BiggusDickus]

@Brianjones

His interviews with serial killers were shite supposedly.

Oh look another gun thread…zzzzzzzzzzzzz

That could apply to any thread.

[BiggusDickus]

@bojack

@BiggusDickus

Does arming oneself against government equate with paying a government to have more arms?

It can, yes. If you’re saying that it seems a little silly to supply and equip the government with the latest in armaments while simultaneously allowing US citizens to own the latest in armaments, I can understand. It seems like a lot of guns.

But yeah, that’s what I believe the US Constitution says. The military can use those weapons outside the US (war), but if they use them inside the US against citizens (say to take control of government) then citizens should be equipped to resist.

In the case where there are foreign armies inside the US, it’s obviously not a good situation for them.

Of course it can’t. Once enough taxes have been paid to create a government controlled military how could anyone defend themselves.

[bojack]

@BiggusDickus

Once enough taxes have been paid to create a government controlled military how could anyone defend themselves.

In the US we believe it can be accomplished by bearing firearms.

I don’t think the rest of the world agrees with us, but of course they have their own governments and their own ideas about firearms.

[BiggusDickus]

@bojack

@BiggusDickus

Once enough taxes have been paid to create a government controlled military how could anyone defend themselves.

In the US we believe it can be accomplished by bearing firearms.

I don’t think the rest of the world agrees with us, but of course they have their own governments and their own ideas about firearms.

You are trusting your government.

[bojack]

@BiggusDickus

You are trusting your government.

Of course we trust our government. But we also bear firearms, just in case things change.

[BiggusDickus]

@bojack

@BiggusDickus

You are trusting your government.

Of course we trust our government. But we also bear firearms, just in case things change.

You’ve paid for them to have bigger firearms.

[bojack]

@BiggusDickus

You’ve paid for them to have bigger firearms.

This is almost always true, but it doesn’t mean we should fall prostrate before them if they decide to misbehave. There are lots of examples of civilians who’ve defeated a military force, even while bearing arms relatively inferior to those of the invaders or occupiers, including recent examples. And of course we defeated the British even though they possessed far greater firepower.

I understand that you may think this is a contradiction, but I disagree.

[DrewC]

Pfffffffffft

Why do you care? This blowhard still has more money than you’ll make in a thousand lifetimes, @Kavalan . I think he’ll be okay.

[BiggusDickus]

@bojack

@BiggusDickus

You’ve paid for them to have bigger firearms.

This is almost always true, but it doesn’t mean we should fall prostrate before them if they decide to misbehave. There are lots of examples of civilians who’ve defeated a military force, even while bearing arms relatively inferior to those of the invaders or occupiers, including recent examples. And of course we defeated the British even though they possessed far greater firepower.

I understand that you may think this is a contradiction, but I disagree.

I don’t disagree, necessarily, just don’t understand. It makes little sense to me.

Anyway, you had Mel Gibson. That bugger beat us in Scotland, too.