Yes, arm him! It will do him worlds of good. He will know then that he has rights, and dare maintain them -- a grand step towards manhood.
Gun Show on the Net has uncovered a document everyone duped by that wretched overseer and profiteer Jesse Jackson ought to read.
4 comments:
Too bad that document is talking about arming "him" as a soldier--not as a citizen unconnected to the military.
The anti's say the Second only protects a right in relation to militia/military service--that document talks along their talking points. Immediately after the part you quote David, it says: "Arm him! for our country needs soldiers. These men will make good soldiers."
And later it says: "The exercise of military authority being entirely under control of the Executive, could not only adjust itself to all grades of intelligence and enterprise among these people and to current changes, but be withdrawn in part or altogether at any moment desirable."
Later it says: "...and adjust them to the individual social and educational necessities of these people, enlisting as many able-bodied men as is expedient, either as regular troops or militia..."
That document espouses, "Arm him" as "regular troops or militia", but this may be "withdrawn in part or altogether at any moment desirable" and to "use his industry" and basically keep "him" enslaved by "giving every colored man a recorded status, a copy of which he carries with him, not only protects him against abuse, but meets this difficulty by allowing him never to change location, or him or his employer to alter their contract without the consent of the Superintendent."
While I also think that ""Yes, arm him! It will do him worlds of good. He will know then that he has rights, and dare maintain them -- a grand step towards manhood" is a wonderful sentiment, let us not cherry pick words and use them out of context of the rest of the paragraph/document--that is the tactic of the anti's/Brady Bunch/VPC/et all and our side doesn't have to do that, we do have the truth on our side.
Of course they needed soldiers. There was a war going on, and the title link provided the appropriate context. What I did was highlight the one statement I found the most meaning in.
I don't think it's "cherry picking" to point out the main motivation, as stated, is to "Let them fight in the war for their own liberty." That point is reinforced more than once.
There is a section on their motives which you haven't acknowledged, and also sections on ideas of property and freedom.
If you think that's not truthful, or Brady-like, I disagree. I also don't think I deserve the insinuations.
I'm sorry if you feel I've insinuated you were using brady policies... that wasn't my intention.
I'm not a writer by trade or hobby so I most assuredly didn't express myself well.
The point of my comment was/is that the linked document talks about, in part, supplying arms [from the government] for military purposes--and those arms can be taken away "at any moment desirable". While there are other sentiments also addressed which I didn't touch on, those points mentioned are are the ones the anit's espouse [their "collective right" bull].
I wasn't trying to suggest that you were cherry picking words in a Brady Bunch manner, but that the Brady Bunch does such all the time--and that we [pro rights people] shouldn't do that [again not that you specifically were doing it]. I guess what I was trying to say was that maybe the perception could be there because of what you chose to quote and what followed immediately after.
As you say, there's whole sections of the document that I "haven't acknowledged"--so I too can be accused of or be said to be cherry picking words to make my point.
What I keyed in on in that document was "arms" and the control of them [at government pleasure] because what the government gives the government can take away, and the right to own arms is not a privilege that the government can give and take.
There are many limits to using this form of communication--lack of space, lack of ability [mine], and lack of other feedback, such as body language, to gauge meaning.
Your short blog post led to my much longer comment, and it seems that my last paragraph was the one you mostly keyed in on--that paragraph probably being my most poorly thought out and expressed. After reading your response and rereading that paragraph I can see that it doesn't really say what I thought I was saying [now that's a convoluted sentence].
The Brady Bunch tells a thousand lies and gets away with it in the media, but let one pro-rights person have even a hint of using "biased" quotes [for lack of a better word] and ALL pro-rights people are accused of lying, being NRA stooges, and also of being nothing more than "goonloons".
Let me finish by saying, again, I wasn't meaning to say that you were cherry picking words but that maybe a perception of such could be seen and that "we" [all pro-rights people] should be careful to avoid all such perception.
Did that make more sense that time? If not, blame it on my lack of ability and not on any intent of yours to use deceptive quoting [still not the words I'm looking for].
Thing is, anon, the same things could be said about that other popular icon of the 2A movement, the citizen-soldier of Lexington/Concord. After all, they were not acting "a...citizen[s] unconnected to the military," and the British headed for Concord were going after stored military supplies, not house-to-house to disarm individuals.
As for disarming the freedmen "at any moment desirable," that's not what that referenced sentence said. It said "The exercise of military authority...could...be..."
If the military disbanded a unit it had formed, would it allow those expelled to retain supplies and arms it had provided? Probably not, but I see nothing in terms of a general disarmament to keep people from taking from camp that which they had brought, not keeping and acquiring property once they left the field--at least not under pretense of the cited Executive authority.
Look, anon, I do a daily "This Day in History" feature, too, and almost always focus on the Revolutionary War, or some other incident from the founding era. This is legitimate and while not always directly tied to RKBA, has general ties, because another common theme here is that freedom is interrelated in its manifestations--you can't tolerate here and restrict there--and the only way it seem to ultimately safeguard that freedom has historically been to take up arms and act in concert.
Post a Comment