Daryl Hunt
Your Worst Nightmare
- Banned
- #341
A hand grenade isn't any different than a bottle rocket either.
Biden to tax away your guns
- Thread starter Votto
- Start date
A hand grenade isn't any different than a bottle rocket either.
Daryl Hunt
Your Worst Nightmare
- Banned
- #342
You sure do like to play with numbers to benefit your own narrative. And where did I say that I wanted to take any ARs from anyone. Just require them to be under the 1934 NFA. If you haven't read that act then you are just gummin her jaws.
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 113,119
- 53,645
- 2,290
N
s
Report: Biden’s proposed gun control plan could hit gun owners with $34 billion in taxes
Get ready to pay upwww.theblaze.com
I reckon it is far easier than flat out banning them.
This can be appealed in court....it would be like taxing books and magazines or newspapers to the point you invalidate the 1st Amendment...
Not really, since it is already done. Even Scalia admitted jurisdictions have the authority to tax guns. And that includes the federal government. It is actually a great idea, just make those "modern sporting rifles", that still cracks me up, like automatic weapons. Eliminating selling new by preventing their production, and then taxing the ones that are in private hands. Not really seeing a case here. You can still own your pistols, shotguns, and real rifles.
Cool. So you'd be behind that taxing free speech and the press as well as going to church are all perfectly valid as well?
What about protection from illegal search and seizure only being available to people who pay their tax for it?
Winston? Where'd you go? Since you're OK with taxing Constitutionally protected rights, so ...
Cool. So you'd be behind that taxing free speech and the press as well as going to church are all perfectly valid as well?
What about protection from illegal search and seizure only being available to people who pay their tax for it?
I don't know what is so hard to understand. You do not, I repeat, DO NOT, have a constitutional guaranteed right to own a modern sporting rifle. Now, when the second amendment was a collective right based on the arming of a militia, you could make the argument that you did have a constitutional right to modern sporting rifles. A really good argument. But that ship sailed away with the judicial activism, and creationism, of Heller. Now the second amendment is an individual right based on self-protection. Do you need a modern sporting rifle for self-protection. Why no, no you don't. Not only can we tax modern sporting rifles, we can ban their production for private use, we can even ban owning them. Because that ban would not significantly "infringe" upon someone's ability to have another type of gun for self-defense.
So fifty, maybe sixty years from now, you won't be able to own much more than a taser and some pepper spray. Hunting will die off, like it almost has. I mean there is more small game roaming around in the woods than there was when the colonists got here. Squirrels, Raccoons, Rabbits--hell, if it weren't for the cats the rabbits would have already taken us over. I mean how many people do you know that run a pack of beagles for rabbit hunting? Not near as many that have that beagle to primp and prune for the Westminister Dog Show. Poor fellas.
I guess what I am saying is that you gun nuts overplayed your hand. When the second amendment was a collective right, well when the Stormtroopers got them some laser fueled disrupters, well you could get one too. Now, tough shit. Some of us in this country warned you guys. We killed our NRA memberships and joined other outfits, like the Sportsman's Alliance. The NRA became nothing more than a Ponzi scam lobbying for the gun manufacturers. They don't give two shits if you lose your collective right to participate in a militia, they pursue the mighty dollar. When modern sporting rifles are outlawed they will just sell you tasers.
Yes....we do....what part of the Heller decision do you not understand? What does Scalia, who wrote the opinion in Heller mean when he says that AR-15s are protected weapons....?
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.
We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.
Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.
Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.
Tell me, what makes sawed off shotguns subject to regulation and bans and not modern sporting rifles? What you fail to realize is that if they can rationalize banning sawed off shotguns they can rationalize banning modern sporting rifles. And the fact that they can ban sawed off shotguns is a clear indicator that you and your friends are not constitutionally granted the right to own any damn weapon you want.
Notice what the Supreme Court stated in Miller.....
If any guns are protected by the 2nd Amendment....it is the AR-15 rifle.....as well as fully automatic military rifles.....
United States v. Miller.........the government argued......
The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia.
What the Court ruled.......guns that are used by a military are protected by the 2nd Amendment.....
The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.
United States v. Miller - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
That ruling is moot at this point. I have explained this already. That ruling was when the second amendment was a collective right, "any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia". Heller changed that, it is now an individual right based in self-defense. For instance, in Heller the problem was the requirement of trigger locks, that would in no way inhibit a militia force. So Scalia and his pals had to do some judicial creationism, history revisionism, and judicial activism, and they twisted the second amendment into a right based on self-defense.
And no where did Scalia say that assault weapons were "protected". Matter of fact, he did say that the ruling did not preclude local jurisdictions from legislating restrictions on arms as long as it did not impede that whole self-defense thing.
Yeah...nothing you just posted is true or accurate......Scalia went into great detail in legal precedent and British and American history....you are just wrong.
I just posted that AR-15s and rifles like it are mentioned by name by Scalia........they are protected by the 2nd Amendment.
He states that limiting gun selection by civilians based on "they have other options," doesn't hold Constitutional muster....
You are totally full of shit.
District of Columbia v. Heller :: 554 U.S. 570 (2008) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center
Show me, show me where even "AR-15" is even in the opinion. But, you will find this in his opinion,
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.
And you lying sack of shit.....you don't include what he says as to what can be limited.....he states locations, felons and mentally ill....he states that the Right
the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
and in Friedman v Highland Park, that came after Heller....Scalia, who wrote Heller....states........
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.
Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629.
And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.
Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid.
Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.
Quit posting bullshit from pro-gun nutjob sites. Read the damn opinion, from beginning to end, albeit I understand the historical revisionism is a little revolting. Like I said, there are assault weapons ban in dozens of jurisdictions throughout the country, Massachusetts jumps out there. And every one of those bans has been held up in court, many times the Judge actually quotes Scalia's opinion in Heller. Some have been appealed to the SCOTUS, and the SCOTUS has refused to hear a single one of them. Most telling, this nation did have an assault weapons ban, before Heller, and it was never successfully challenged in court. I don't know why this is so hard to understand.
The 4th Circuit in Massachusetts is violating the Constitution and the Supreme Court rulings........they have not been upheld in court, they were made up by the left wing, anti-gun extremists on the lower courts who are ignoring the Constitution and the Bill of Rights...
What is so hard for you, you doofus....to understand that you are wrong....
The SCOTUS has had that case on appeal for more than a year and they have refused to hear it. Get back to me when they actually agree to hear it, but I won't hold my breath. Pretty sure that ship has already sailed.
It hasn't sailed, as Thomas keeps stating......the problem is the left wing activists on the court who don't understand the Constitution, and want to rule how they feel, instead of according to the Bill of Rights.
Why is it that you think the left wing activists don't understand the Constitution? Can you at least accept the fact that the biggest bit of judicial activism in the last one hundred years was Scalia and Heller? I mean I understand you don't have the history background that I do, but Scalia's opinion is some major historical revisionism. And it is really pretty simple, prior to the battles of Lexington and Concord, the British were on the way to the armory, to confiscate the weapons that were kept THERE, not in their homes.
The Battle of King's Mountain, a pivotal battle in the Revolutionary War. General Fergunson was shot off his horse, by a rifle owned by my great, great, well who knows how many greats, grandfather. He was not there, the rifle was borrowed. He was too old to make the journey. But the reality is that one rifle was THE rifle for this entire region. And it was used for hunting, which is how old man Wiedner made his living. And the Native Americans feared that rifle. But everyone did not have a rifle, and few that did kept them in their home. It was just too dangerous. They were accurate, but they were slow, and no match for an accomplished archer, like the Native Americans. Who could send multiple arrows down range per minute.
You don't know what you are talking about...the very thing you posted explains exactly why we have the 2nd Amendment...........
Gage's aide John Andrews explained that everyone in the area aged 16 years or older owned a gun and plenty of gunpowder.
Military rule would be difficult to impose on an armed populace. Gage had only 2,000 troops in Boston. There were thousands of armed men in Boston alone, and more in the surrounding area. One response to the problem was to deprive the Americans of gunpowder.
---------
The militia that assembled at the Lexington Green and the Concord Bridge consisted of able-bodied men aged 16 to 60. They supplied their own firearms, although a few poor men had to borrow a gun. Warned by Paul Revere and Samuel Dawes of the British advance, the young women of Lexington assembled cartridges late into the evening of April 18.
A
The American Revolution against British Gun Control
British gun confiscation caused the American Revolutionwww.davekopel.org
In many townships citizens were required to own gunpower, STORED IN THE ARMORY. Same for their guns, they were REQUIRED to be stored at the armory. You could check them out, much like a library book, anytime. This is not some secret, it has been known by historians since the very beginning.
No, moron....they had their rifles and enough powder for their guns...the larger quantities were stored in the powder house....you twit.
Bullshit. Many of the rifles used during the Battles of Lexington and Concord were Brown Besses, DISTRIBUTED by the crown during the French and Indian War.
sReport: Biden’s proposed gun control plan could hit gun owners with $34 billion in taxes
Get ready to pay up
I reckon it is far easier than flat out banning them.
This can be appealed in court....it would be like taxing books and magazines or newspapers to the point you invalidate the 1st Amendment...
Not really, since it is already done. Even Scalia admitted jurisdictions have the authority to tax guns. And that includes the federal government. It is actually a great idea, just make those "modern sporting rifles", that still cracks me up, like automatic weapons. Eliminating selling new by preventing their production, and then taxing the ones that are in private hands. Not really seeing a case here. You can still own your pistols, shotguns, and real rifles.
Cool. So you'd be behind that taxing free speech and the press as well as going to church are all perfectly valid as well?
What about protection from illegal search and seizure only being available to people who pay their tax for it?
Winston? Where'd you go? Since you're OK with taxing Constitutionally protected rights, so ...
Cool. So you'd be behind that taxing free speech and the press as well as going to church are all perfectly valid as well?
What about protection from illegal search and seizure only being available to people who pay their tax for it?
I don't know what is so hard to understand. You do not, I repeat, DO NOT, have a constitutional guaranteed right to own a modern sporting rifle. Now, when the second amendment was a collective right based on the arming of a militia, you could make the argument that you did have a constitutional right to modern sporting rifles. A really good argument. But that ship sailed away with the judicial activism, and creationism, of Heller. Now the second amendment is an individual right based on self-protection. Do you need a modern sporting rifle for self-protection. Why no, no you don't. Not only can we tax modern sporting rifles, we can ban their production for private use, we can even ban owning them. Because that ban would not significantly "infringe" upon someone's ability to have another type of gun for self-defense.
So fifty, maybe sixty years from now, you won't be able to own much more than a taser and some pepper spray. Hunting will die off, like it almost has. I mean there is more small game roaming around in the woods than there was when the colonists got here. Squirrels, Raccoons, Rabbits--hell, if it weren't for the cats the rabbits would have already taken us over. I mean how many people do you know that run a pack of beagles for rabbit hunting? Not near as many that have that beagle to primp and prune for the Westminister Dog Show. Poor fellas.
I guess what I am saying is that you gun nuts overplayed your hand. When the second amendment was a collective right, well when the Stormtroopers got them some laser fueled disrupters, well you could get one too. Now, tough shit. Some of us in this country warned you guys. We killed our NRA memberships and joined other outfits, like the Sportsman's Alliance. The NRA became nothing more than a Ponzi scam lobbying for the gun manufacturers. They don't give two shits if you lose your collective right to participate in a militia, they pursue the mighty dollar. When modern sporting rifles are outlawed they will just sell you tasers.
Yes....we do....what part of the Heller decision do you not understand? What does Scalia, who wrote the opinion in Heller mean when he says that AR-15s are protected weapons....?
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.
We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.
Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.
Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.
Tell me, what makes sawed off shotguns subject to regulation and bans and not modern sporting rifles? What you fail to realize is that if they can rationalize banning sawed off shotguns they can rationalize banning modern sporting rifles. And the fact that they can ban sawed off shotguns is a clear indicator that you and your friends are not constitutionally granted the right to own any damn weapon you want.
Notice what the Supreme Court stated in Miller.....
If any guns are protected by the 2nd Amendment....it is the AR-15 rifle.....as well as fully automatic military rifles.....
United States v. Miller.........the government argued......
The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia.
What the Court ruled.......guns that are used by a military are protected by the 2nd Amendment.....
The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.
United States v. Miller - Wikipedia
That ruling is moot at this point. I have explained this already. That ruling was when the second amendment was a collective right, "any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia". Heller changed that, it is now an individual right based in self-defense. For instance, in Heller the problem was the requirement of trigger locks, that would in no way inhibit a militia force. So Scalia and his pals had to do some judicial creationism, history revisionism, and judicial activism, and they twisted the second amendment into a right based on self-defense.
And no where did Scalia say that assault weapons were "protected". Matter of fact, he did say that the ruling did not preclude local jurisdictions from legislating restrictions on arms as long as it did not impede that whole self-defense thing.
Yeah...nothing you just posted is true or accurate......Scalia went into great detail in legal precedent and British and American history....you are just wrong.
I just posted that AR-15s and rifles like it are mentioned by name by Scalia........they are protected by the 2nd Amendment.
He states that limiting gun selection by civilians based on "they have other options," doesn't hold Constitutional muster....
You are totally full of shit.
District of Columbia v. Heller :: 554 U.S. 570 (2008) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center
Show me, show me where even "AR-15" is even in the opinion. But, you will find this in his opinion,
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.
And you lying sack of shit.....you don't include what he says as to what can be limited.....he states locations, felons and mentally ill....he states that the Right
the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
and in Friedman v Highland Park, that came after Heller....Scalia, who wrote Heller....states........
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.
Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629.
And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.
Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid.
Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.
Quit posting bullshit from pro-gun nutjob sites. Read the damn opinion, from beginning to end, albeit I understand the historical revisionism is a little revolting. Like I said, there are assault weapons ban in dozens of jurisdictions throughout the country, Massachusetts jumps out there. And every one of those bans has been held up in court, many times the Judge actually quotes Scalia's opinion in Heller. Some have been appealed to the SCOTUS, and the SCOTUS has refused to hear a single one of them. Most telling, this nation did have an assault weapons ban, before Heller, and it was never successfully challenged in court. I don't know why this is so hard to understand.
The 4th Circuit in Massachusetts is violating the Constitution and the Supreme Court rulings........they have not been upheld in court, they were made up by the left wing, anti-gun extremists on the lower courts who are ignoring the Constitution and the Bill of Rights...
What is so hard for you, you doofus....to understand that you are wrong....
The SCOTUS has had that case on appeal for more than a year and they have refused to hear it. Get back to me when they actually agree to hear it, but I won't hold my breath. Pretty sure that ship has already sailed.
It hasn't sailed, as Thomas keeps stating......the problem is the left wing activists on the court who don't understand the Constitution, and want to rule how they feel, instead of according to the Bill of Rights.
Why is it that you think the left wing activists don't understand the Constitution? Can you at least accept the fact that the biggest bit of judicial activism in the last one hundred years was Scalia and Heller? I mean I understand you don't have the history background that I do, but Scalia's opinion is some major historical revisionism. And it is really pretty simple, prior to the battles of Lexington and Concord, the British were on the way to the armory, to confiscate the weapons that were kept THERE, not in their homes.
The Battle of King's Mountain, a pivotal battle in the Revolutionary War. General Fergunson was shot off his horse, by a rifle owned by my great, great, well who knows how many greats, grandfather. He was not there, the rifle was borrowed. He was too old to make the journey. But the reality is that one rifle was THE rifle for this entire region. And it was used for hunting, which is how old man Wiedner made his living. And the Native Americans feared that rifle. But everyone did not have a rifle, and few that did kept them in their home. It was just too dangerous. They were accurate, but they were slow, and no match for an accomplished archer, like the Native Americans. Who could send multiple arrows down range per minute.
You don't know what you are talking about...
CONCLUSION
Our hope here is to do much more than explode recently created myths about gun ownership in probate records. As we show, in probate inventories (1) there were high numbers of guns in early America;1 2 (2) guns were much more common than swords or other edged weapons; 5 ' (3) women owned guns;.5 4 and (4) the great majority of gun-owning estates listed no old or broken guns.' Our estimates that at least 50% of male and female wealthholders owned guns in 1774 colonial America are the first carefully weighted national probate-based estimates for gun ownership in eighteenth-century America.
[/URL]
Oh piss off. What that study says, and I already know it because I have been around the block with more than a few freaking gun nuts, is that probate records don't count, that people "secretly" owned guns. Well whoopie damn shit, and people "secretly" owned the cure to cancer but never revealed it. It is stupid. Gun ownership was no where near as prevalent in colonial times as you gun nuts want to believe. And for the most part, Americans were some piss poor hunters. I mean they traded those "guns" for freakin food with the Native Americans. If they were great hunters why the hell would they do that?
Besides, who the hell could afford a gun? The real guns, the guns that made the difference, were custom made. They weren't cheap. I mean if your position was true the Colonial Army would have relied on their soldiers to provide their own weapons, right? Is that what happened? Hell no. Not even close.
You really are a shit for brains........guns were an essential tool for survival, for both hunting and fighting off the "peaceful," native American war parties.
The Colonial army couldn't depend on colonists to show up and many left immediately after their term of service was up, you doofus.......they had to go home to provide for their families, you doofus.
You are the one being delusional. If guns were so prevalent and critical, why did the British government have to issue guns to soldiers during the French and Indian War? If they were so instrumental in providing food for the colonists through hunting, why did they trade them with Native Americans for food?
The fact is that the British government paid a bounty for militiamen that could provide their own gun during the French and Indian War. About eight percent of militiamen collected that bounty. Sorry, but eight percent of the population owning guns is not really supporting your fantasy. The reality is that a gun, during colonial times, cost about two months pay, of a skilled tradesman. Hunting, that is a damn joke. Muskets were highly inaccurate, and if you missed the first shot the game was long gone Spiking the Gun Myth (nytimes.com) by the time you could reload. Deadfall traps were a better option. Hell, the joke back then was who would bring a gun to a knife fight. Knives, axes, the proverbial tomahawk, were all a better choice of self-defense than a slow firing highly inaccurate musket.
Spiking the Gun Myth (nytimes.com)
Your link...I thought this was what you were using and was curious........thanks for confirming that you used this actual fakes work....
Spiking the Gun Myth
archive.nytimes.com
Wow.....you really are a stupid human being......you used Michael Bellesiles....you dumb twit...
Do you understand that he lied in his book? That the award he got for writing that fake history book was revoked, the first time in that awards history and then he got shit canned from his teaching gig....?
Emory investigation and resignation[edit]
As criticism increased and charges of scholarly misconduct were made, Emory University conducted an internal inquiry into Bellesiles's integrity, appointing an independent investigative committee composed of three leading academic historians from outside Emory.[18] Bellesiles failed to provide investigators with his research notes, claiming the notes were destroyed in a flood.[19][20][21]
----
The scholarly investigation confirmed that Bellesiles' work had serious flaws, calling into question both its quality and veracity. The external report on Bellesiles concluded that "every aspect of his work in the probate records is deeply flawed" and called his statements in self-defense "prolix, confusing, evasive, and occasionally contradictory." It concluded that "his scholarly integrity is seriously in question."[23]
---------
Aftermath of the scandal[edit]
In 2002, the trustees of Columbia University rescinded Arming America's Bancroft Prize, the first such action in the history of the prize.
Alfred A. Knopf, publisher of Arming America, did not renew Bellesiles' contract, and the National Endowment for the Humanities withdrew its name from a fellowship that the Newberry Library had granted Bellesiles.[26] In 2003, Arming America was republished in a revised and amended edition by Soft Skull Press. Bellesiles continued to defend the book's credibility and thesis, arguing that roughly three-quarters of the original book remained unchallenged.[27]
Historians who initially admired Arming America ceased to defend Bellesiles. The nationally prominent historian Garry Wills, who had enthusiastically reviewed Arming America for the New York Times,[28] later said, in a 2005 interview on C-SPAN, "I was took. The book is a fraud."
Wills noted that Bellesiles "claimed to have consulted archives he didn't and he misrepresented those archives," although "he didn't have to do that," since "he had a lot of good, solid evidence." Wills added, "People get taken by very good con men."[29]
Historian Roger Lane, who had reviewed the book positively in the Journal of American History,[30] offered a similar opinion:
"It is entirely clear to me that he's made up a lot of these records. He's betrayed us. He's betrayed the cause. It's 100 percent clear that the guy is a liar and a disgrace to my profession. He's breached that trust."[31] Historian Pauline Maier reflected that it seemed historians had "ceased to read carefully and critically, even in the awarding of book prizes."[32]
As Hoffer concluded, "Bellesiles's condemnation by Emory University, the trustees of the Bancroft Prizes, and Knopf provided the gun lobby with information to blast the entire history profession....Even though H-Law, the Omohundro Institute, the OAH, and the AHA rushed to his side and stated principled objections to the politicization of history, they hesitated to ask the equally important question of whether he had manipulated them and betrayed their trust."[33]
Arming America - Wikipedia
You don't know what you are talking about........you used this fraud as your source for your posts....you are an idiot...
I believe he was labeled a "fraud" because he dared to state the obvious. I would put up his research against that of John Lott every day of the week.
The reality is you guys live in a fantasy world. Like the idea that a gun was vital, to put food on the table and fight off the Native Americans. Stupid. In the case of food on the table, the musket didn't really make much sense. Sure, the Kentucky rifle was fair, if you were a great shot. But you only had one shot. After that big boom you would be lucky to find any game within an hour. Trapping was much more effective, why do you think the fur traders used traps? And defending yourself against native Americans. That is comical. You might get one of them with your mighty musket, then the other twenty scalped your ass. Foolish thinking if you get right down to it.
Other posters have mentioned where I live, but I don't think they really understand. A mile down a private dirt road, my backyard is part of one of the few remaining "virgin forests" in the United States. It is actually listed in the Historical Record. Muscadine vines that are at least a hundred years old climbing in to the top of the trees, much like they did when Juan Pardo came through here in the 16th century. An untouched river with no dams, a rarity in this part of the country. Huge Black Walnut trees towering by the river, another rarity because each one of those trees is worth thousands of dollars.
I know guns were rare in colonial times because I know my family history. We have lived in this valley for more than three hundred years. This land was part of a King's Grant, if you know what that means, and it has never left family hands, which is actually very common in South Mountain. Basically, in 1700 there might have been a hundred white people that lived west of the Catawba River. In 1750, there might have been five. Them muskets didn't work so well against the arrows of the native Americans. The Cherokee were pretty tough, but the Catawba were the fiercest warriors to ever walk this nation's grounds.
The reality is that the Colonial Army struggled to arm their forces. Individuals didn't bring their guns. The reality is one Robert Morris bought most the weapons for the American Army. Maybe he should be the real American Hero. But if the fantasy you people live in existed he never would have had to deplete his fortune. So, No, Americans were not swimming in guns, every household did not have a gun to get their food and fight off the Native Americans. Those guns costs far too much, and with the exception of the Kentucky and Pennsylvania rifle, were far too inaccurate, to be worth much of anything in either taking game, or fighting off native Americans. A bow was the better option for taking game, and quite honestly, a better option for fighting off native Americans.
What really bothers me is the historical revisionism that perpetuates this fantasy world that you live in. Like I said, it really underestimates just how strong, how brave, how plucky--yeah, old ass word that no one knows what it means, the colonists really were. It disrespects them, it underestimates them, and all because people like you have to hold on to this fantasy in order to rationalize your own overly dependent relationship with "arms". Kind of sad.
But perhaps the best way I can explain where I am coming from is to tell you what it was like when I was a kid, I mean like 14. Dad was a big business man, and way back then, well some big business men, especially in the food industry, enjoyed hunting quail. And Dad, well he was kind of comical. He always said, when he went hunting he went to shoot, and when the covey flew up, BOOM, BOOM, BOOM, he would let three shots of that Remington Automatic go as quick as he could pull the trigger. He might knock down one bird, if he was lucky.
And I knew, early on, that he was taking these people hunting to show off me and Grandpaw, and Mike, Grandpaw's bird dog. We would meet them at the airport as they landed in their private plane and strutted off with their ten thousand dollar bird dog. When we got to the field one of the first things people mentioned was my .410. Oh, it was cute. Perfect for a "kid". And grandpaw, cussing like a sailor, and running Mike. But those wealthy business owners were soon nothing short of amazed.
Mike, he was absolutely amazing. Walk right outside of the woods, he would sweep the field. Walk right inside the woods, he would sweep the woods. And those owners might have an expensive bird dog, but they all took direction from old Mike. And when they went to point, well that is when the show began. One word from Grandpaw and Mike would run up the covey. BOOM, BOOM, BOOM, Dad's three shots would ring out. One bird might fall. BOOM, BOOM, Grandpaws Remington would let go, four birds would fall. He waited till they crossed. But, pling, pling, by .410 double barrel would let loose, the first shot, and the last shot, and two birds would fall, injured but not killed. Taking the second shot with the modified barrel. Sometimes those business owners got some shots off, some of them were pretty good. But then Dad would go, let's go get the singles. Mike would sniff them out, I would take them down. And every time, those business owners sat there with their mouth hanging open. Grandpaw, Mike, and I, put on a show.
I shot on an NRA sponsored rifle team in my teens. I was eliminated at the regionals for the Olympics. And to this day, when the family gets together to shoot a gun, they make me go last. Appleseed qualified, accurate to 500 yards, you really don't want to get in a shooting contest with me. And yes, I support strong gun control measures, mostly because the thoughts of some of you delusional assholes having access to a weapon scares the bejesus out of me.
Moron........he didn't state the obvious...he made up research from his imagination and the Bancroft Prize committee stripped him of his award and he was fired from his job....that doesn't happen to people who "simply state the obvious."
Ray From Cleveland
Diamond Member
- Aug 16, 2015
- 97,215
- 37,461
- 2,290
This is a common sense political test here: Daryl, do you really believe if the Democrats actually did what you say, they would stop there; they would never bring up the gun issue again, even after the next (and we know it's going to happen) mass shooting?
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 113,119
- 53,645
- 2,290
I know you are engaging Daryl the way I engage the other idiot gun grabbers........but you know as well as I do that he is a lame brain..........he and the other gun grabbers who hate Trump are now cheering the china puppet biden the way the Germans cheered that guy "adolf" when he assumed power.......thinking good things were about to happen...........
Ray From Cleveland
Diamond Member
- Aug 16, 2015
- 97,215
- 37,461
- 2,290
For Democrats, Biden will be a good thing. More government control, much higher fuel prices so they can cram that green BS down our throats, Making it damn near impossible to buy a gun by the time the end of his first term nears, and the major damage he's going to do to this country will all be blamed on President Trump.
Now if this is an underhanded plot by the Democrats and they get creepy Joe to step down, they are going to be pissed as hell that Whorris takes over because she didn't get much more than 1% of the vote during the primaries. Like the Sander's voters when Hillary was running, the Democrats are once again going to stab their constituents right in the back.
Most people don't call a tea house a "brewery," but whatever
Daryl Hunt
Your Worst Nightmare
- Banned
- #350
The Minority can bring up anything they want. Doesn't mean we have to do it. But you seem to believe that your minority that preaches extremist views means we all should think exactly what you do. Good luck with that one.
Daryl Hunt
Your Worst Nightmare
- Banned
- #351
Stop with calling anything "Assault". The Rtwingnutjob Gunnutters use that to believe they win arguements. IF you want to really piss off the gunnutters, spell it out like the Courts require. Instead of Assault Rifle, spell it out as AR-15/AK-47 and various clones. Now that's I've done that sit back and watch the fun.
Ray From Cleveland
Diamond Member
- Aug 16, 2015
- 97,215
- 37,461
- 2,290
Yes, they can bring up anything they want........if they become the majority and with help of people like you, we will have to do as they say. If you follow politics, then you know the Democrats never stop until they meet their ultimate goal. In this case, disarming America. Democrats are like terrorists. They are very patient people. Increments and increments until they obtain their utopia.
I'm sorry you think that freedom is an extremist view, but that's what I happen to believe in. It's the founding of this nation.
Daryl Hunt
Your Worst Nightmare
- Banned
- #353
Hate to break it to you but your fear, hate and scare tactics have all but run it's course. If they wanted my guns, they would have done it long ago AND with the cooperation of the past Republicans. I still have mine.
danielpalos
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #354
Insist our legislators stop slacking.
The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
Ray From Cleveland
Diamond Member
- Aug 16, 2015
- 97,215
- 37,461
- 2,290
The reason they can't get your guns is because they don't have total power......yet. The more power they gain, the more steps they will take to get to that point, and Biden winning along with his gun plans are one of those steps.
The court is leaning constitutionally now thanks to Trumps picks. However Biden and Whorris have both kept quiet when asked the question on packing the court. In other words, yes, they will pack the court, but don't want to tell the public about it until after the election. With more communists in the court system, and the unreliability of Benedict Roberts, you may very well see a ruling that guns are not protected by the Constitution outside of being in a militia.
At that point yes, the government can come and confiscate your guns by a simple passage of the law. And don't say it can't happen. Look at Commie Care. If we told people that if you elect Obama, you would be forced by law to get health insurance, you people would have told us it's fear mongering, just like you are with guns today.
No, it will not be an overnight switch. What they can do is keep making it more and more difficult to buy guns and ammo until they are able to eliminate them. They will use the same tactic that they used for tobacco. It costs a tobacco company about six bucks to make a carton of cigarettes. Here, it's $77.00 to buy that carton, and much more in other states and cities. It got to that price by taxing people into submission and the lawsuits they allowed to take place, especially when Gore was VP.
They will do the same with firearms and ammo. Just watch and see.
danielpalos
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #356
Well regulated militia of the United States have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union,
Daryl Hunt
Your Worst Nightmare
- Banned
- #357
While you know that I don't agree with your post you should be aware that MOST taxes on Cigarettes are at the state level.
Ray From Cleveland
Diamond Member
- Aug 16, 2015
- 97,215
- 37,461
- 2,290
Federal, state, county....... The point is when they want to stop you from doing something, they just tax you to death instead of making that something illegal or allow people to get sued. Just like what Biden wants to do with guns. Take away the liability protection, cities and individuals will be able to sue gun manufacturers out of business, either that or their insurance will be so expensive a $600 gun today will cost you over $2,000. If their power continues, they will allow the same with companies that produce ammunition.
WTH_Progs?
Diamond Member
- Feb 19, 2019
- 12,229
- 10,388
- 2,140
Suck it.
PROGS have been infringing on the 2nd amendment for decades. When I enter shithole California I have to have my pistol locked away in one place, and the ammunition locked in another. Oh sure, that works out well when you're up against PROG-thugs.
Pretty sure PROGS are too dumb to recognize a strangle on good people is to the benefit of thugs, that's how the PROG-elite likes it, chaos is their agenda.
Meanwhile Biden's communist dementia is well-protected by beyond AR15, cuz he deserves special privileges. Don't do as I do but as I say, right PROGS? It's the communist's way
/——-/ Dementia Joe will do whatever his handlers tell him to do. Besides Commie Harris will be sworn in once Joe is sent off to a nursing home.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
-
-
London Mayor Confused By Protesters Not Chanting ‘Death To Jews’- Started by Votto
- Replies: 2
-
