[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k] [s4s] [vip] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/pol/ - Politically Incorrect



Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.



File: IMG_4164.png (350 KB, 667x317)
350 KB
350 KB PNG
Hi /k/,

Visitor from another board here. This isn't a bait thread, I have a genuine question which I thought that I'd go to the experts about, so I'm asking in good faith

"The individual right to bear arms is defense against tyrannical government"

Where does this idea come from? I know about the 20th century arms confiscations by communist and fascist regimes, I'm asking about the historical prescedent which lead the founding fathers to agree that it's important enough to enshrine as a constitutional right. What's the history of tyrannical governments depriving its citizens of guns which made us realize how important arms are to civil society?

Educate me, /k/. Make an ally out of someone
>>
>>144441493
Well I don't mean to patronize but the founding fathers had literally just finished a war in which civilian gun ownership had been one of the largest contributing factors to their victory.

The first action the crown of England took to squash the rebellion was to try and seize colonial arms. (Read Lexington and Concord)
>>
>>144441493
The idea originally was from protestant's in England that didn't trust their Catholic king. This is actually in the wiki of the 2nd amendment. How about you think for yourself.
>>
>>144441495
I copied this
the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Sir William Blackstone described this right as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.
>>
>>144441496
Well there's your answer, why are you even asking?
>>
>>144441493

All comes from here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jm1FrTO2aOg

>>144441495
>The idea originally was from protestant's in England that didn't trust their Catholic king

Jesus christ, kill yourself.
>>
>>144441494
I don't mind patronizing, I'm here to learn

>>144441495
I didn't even think to check the wiki, thanks. Any other online resources that you recommend? Non-Anglo examples of tyrants confiscating arms?

I know about the medieval attempted ban on crossbows, how far back does this prescedent go?
>>
>>144441494
>>144441495
Both of these are good answers, although the later is probably a little more to what you're looking for.

Another component (since it wasn't JUST one event) was that most the founding fathers had a good knowledge of Greek/Roman history. Don't you think they thought it interesting that although Greeks colonized and were scattered all over the place they were able to defend themselves well (pre-Rome) while remaining free men although just being city states? Well, Greeks were free men who formed militias and everyone had access to a weapon. Compared to neighbors where it was a small elite ruling over a moderate-vast amount of varying degrees of slaves.

They had history to back them up for thousands of years of why it was important to have this to remain free from tyranny.
>>
>>144441498
Which Jesus Christ though, the protestant one or catholic one?
>>
>>144441501

Either would do.
>>
>>144441497
I’m not OP
>>
>>144441500
Very illuminating, thank you. I don't suppose you have any primary sources where I can go to read more about this
>>
>>144441493
Like most of the legal/ideological principles the founding father's had, this one was largely anglo centric and heavily influenced by the thinking of certain enlightenment era philosophers such as john locke.

British rule was something that they found highly unsatisfactory and overbearing, people were getting all antsy on these new ideas about how the government had as much of an obligation to it's people as the people did to it and that certain rights of the people were unalienable and essentially "god given" for lack of a better term. You can imagine what the establishment thought of that. Without any meaningful representation their only means of attaining the personal and political freedom they were seeking was via force and by bearing arms.

Being once bitten and twice shy, and also considering the body of evidence available to them about other cultures similar experiences, they felt that the only way to truly insulate a democracy from the tyranny of the few was to insure that the many would always have comparable enough arms as to allow for them to assert themselves if necessary.
>>
>>144441493
On a philosophical level, the right to self defense is truly self evident. I don't think anyone can reasonably claim that the average man doesn't have the right to protect himself from aggression.

This idea logically leads to the concept of equal armaments among mankind so one portion of the population can't just completely roll over another.

From an American prospective, the right to bare arms has always been a necessity. The individualist lifestyle and frontier nature of early Americans shaped our beliefs, and those beliefs we're solidified in the American Revolution.
>>
>>144441506
I agree with his reasoning, but it unfortunately also stands to reason that if I'm a tyrant looking to profit At the expense of my population, depriving them of arms would be a way of preventing them from doing anything about it, and I'm interested in reading more about concrete examples of this happening historically. Everything I was finding mostly talked about the 20th century.
>>
>>144441507
>Everything I was finding mostly talked about the 20th century.

I don't really understand what kind of Googling you're doing, but everything is derived from >>144441498

Do a bit of research on it
>>
>>144441507
Well I'd argue that it's gotten much more easy to disarm a population in the last few centuries, a simple axe, machete, or farming scythe could be used as an effective counter to compact specific weaponry in the past.

Nowadays, civilians simply can't counter firearms without having their own.

Read up on Pol Pot and Stalinist arms seizures, also a great modern example of Civilian arms ownership curtailing government abuse Is the 1946 Battle of Athens.
>>
>>144441508
>Do a bit of research on it
That's what brought me here. I just needed you fine, helpful gents to point me in the right direction.
>>
>>144441509
Combat specific*
>>
>>144441509
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946)
>>
>>144441509
Not really. Back in the day there was nothing individuals could to in the face of overwhelming numbers, but with a rifle one man can cause havoc for entire units.
>>
>>144441510

Sadly I don't have the time to write up a decent post, I'd encourage you to watch or read things by David Starkey.

Also, everyone in this thread has been wayyyy too short looking.
>>
>>144441513
Collectively a populace could resist foreign invasion though.

One guy with an AR is going to get shrekt by larger numbers now as well
>>
File: 1504737255215.jpg (90 KB, 548x718)
90 KB
90 KB JPG
>>144441504
Anything Plato, vegetius, Marcus arelius, bible. Id throw in the Koran too honestly. But any of the moat prominent figures and organizations preach self sufficiency and defense
>>144441505
I liked laviathin even if it was simple
>>
>>144441515
>One guy with an AR is going to get shrekt by larger numbers now as well
Did you sleep through history class? Are you forgetting all of the modern wars where small rag tag bands of paramilitaries can stand up to world class armies for decades?

If the Romans invaded you in -300 what are you and your buddies going to do? Run at hundred man formations with swords?

But when the Americans invade in 2003 you can lay IEDs, mines, shoot from a distance and run off, etc.
>>
File: 1504508219956m.jpg (95 KB, 677x1024)
95 KB
95 KB JPG
>>144441516
Sorry leviathan was by Hobbes ill commit sudoku now.
>>
>>144441493
Fuck off back to where you came from you fucking cunt
>>
File: 1433047351489.jpg (1.54 MB, 3112x2338)
1.54 MB
1.54 MB JPG
You have to remember that, at the time, the Colonies weren't really all that well developed. People NEEDED guns. Indian raids, dangerous wildlife, and just regular ol' crime was a threat. Furthermore, North America had a troublesome quality about it in that it was colonized by two major European powers: England and France. And unfortunately, these two rarely saw eye-to-eye.

The French and Indian Wars, which took place just prior to the Revolutionary War and in which many of the Founding Fathers fought, was won in no small part by the colonists themselves, who provided their own weaponry. These people gave sweat, blood, and tears for their King.

In return, they were met with crippling taxes and economic sanctions over the next few decades. Don't get me wrong, wars are expensive, and the British Empire, rich as it was, needed to recoup some funds. The problem was that the Colonies were not consulted in ANY of these proceedings. They were British, they spoke British, they came from Britain. And yet they were being treated like the subjects of conquered nations.

Furthermore, once the British realized that revolt was inevitable, their very first action was to attempt to seize the arms of local Revolutionaries. No guns = no war.

>tl;dr
Guns were a necessary part of life back then. The guns of the average, private citizen was indispensable in protecting their country. And the Founding Fathers realized that the first action of a government which fears its own citizens is to attempt to disarm them.

There are many practical reasons to own firearms, and the Founding Fathers took those as a given. But the Second Amendment was written *specifically* to ensure that the armed citizenry would always be there to protect themselves, their family, their friends, and their countrymen against whatever they might face. Even if that enemy was their own government.
>>
>>144441516
>Id throw in the Koran too honestly
Really? Why the fuck would you lump desert legalism in with the western cannon?
>>
>>144441493
>reminder to report politics threads
OP
>>>/pol/
>>
>>144441522
Fuck off.

>>144441493
In recent history, every time Communists get in control, they disarm their populace. Once the populace is disarmed, they begin killing them by the millions. This has happened in every single country to suffer Communist rule. But it has not happened in America.
>>
>>144441522
His question isn't a political question you fucking double nigger. Go be autistic and shitpost in another thread
>>
>>144441520
>In return, they were met with crippling taxes and economic sanctions over the next few decades. Don't get me wrong, wars are expensive, and the British Empire, rich as it was, needed to recoup some funds. The problem was that the Colonies were not consulted in ANY of these proceedings. They were British, they spoke British, they came from Britain. And yet they were being treated like the subjects of conquered nations.

At no point in Colonial America did taxes increase higher than the rate in the UK, or anywhere else. Taxes in the 13 Colonies were lower than anywhere else.
>>
File: 1506715608592.jpg (97 KB, 1080x1080)
97 KB
97 KB JPG
>>144441521
Its a good build up a "dinus nuffins" alibi religion to mask the fact Muslims gear up for war on their host nations. It can be applied to an upcoming revo. Just act like youve been wrong, jihad ala futwa and force the courts to recognise why you did it was because religion

>me at loling at you
>>
>>144441525
No, but in addition to being taxed on things like tea, sugar, notarized things, etc., they were forbidden from trading from any other nation for these necessities. They were forced to deal with the British monopoly on these imports, which of course they made more and more expensive. It wasn't a de jure tax but it was a de facto one.
>>
>>144441517
Changes in tactics, not technology.

The Romans would just massacre and enslave your population, quite literally st your fields, rape your daughters and populate your lands with their loyal citizens.

Insurgencies only work because of the occupying forces unwillingness to break the resistance.
>>
File: 1500826463136.gif (545 KB, 400x600)
545 KB
545 KB GIF
>>144441525
> they were not taxed higher than the brits at any time
>some how raising taxes in Britain makes the revolution defunct
Take a logical step back bub the brits did get their taxes raised
>>
>>144441526
Is english your second language?
>>
>>144441528
Then why did partisan groups give the krauts on the eastern front so much trouble?
>>
>>144441530
Duh
>>
>>144441531
OSS nibba
>>
>>144441533
>eastern front
>OSS
Are you retarded?
>>
>>144441531
They didn't have enough time to kill everyone.

That's literally it, and they were also still fighting the largest battle in human history.

Had they defeated the soviets, they would have decimated the population.
>>
Taxation rate of the british american colonies was less than half of Britain, but then again, the americans never had much return from those taxes. Much just went back to Britain without it being used to invest in infrastructure etc in the americas.
>>
>>144441534
>Gov't tells me everythimy and answers freedom of information act.

Damn son
>>
>>144441537
Dude what the fuck are you even trying to say? Why would the government conceal supporting eastern european partisans who were fighting the Nazis? What is the motive?

Give me some evidence that were was massive support by OSS given to partisan groups.
>>
>>144441493
The Constitution was written by people who had just overthrown a tyrannical government by forming a militia of armed citizens to oppose it.

HTH. HAND.
>>
>>144441535
But the Nazis did decimate the population, deport whole villages, etc. And yet the partisans were still a huge thorn in their side.

The fact of the matter is with modern firearms, explosives, and such it only takes a few people to do a lot of damage. The same can't be said about swords and spears.
>>
File: minuteman1.jpg (24 KB, 300x435)
24 KB
24 KB JPG
OP here, still appreciating the conversation. Thanks /k/
>>
>>144441540
I think the will to fight would have gone away as soon as the soviets lost.
>>
File: 1502823853946.jpg (10 KB, 236x243)
10 KB
10 KB JPG
>>144441538
My guy you act as if the OSS started of as OSS and not just whatever the different branches through out their asses.

There s a shit ton of second hand accounts with American dutch and SIS agents sneaking in liberators to Franzusische and grecko during the Africa campaign. I aint ya mama go look it up.

OSS had deep roots in south asia, Greek and Spanish revolutions near the end of 44
>>
>>144441527
this is the same reason ghandi took his diaper to the ocean to make salt
we dumped the tea in the harbor because we were forced to buy it
>>
>>144441543
You can barely form a coherent sentence.

Obviously the OSS was operating in theaters the western allies were fighting in, but why would they be operating in soviet territory supporting soviet groups. And you were the one that said
>OSS nibba
When you make a claim it's your responsibility to prove it. You can't say something, tell me to fuck off when I ask you to prove it, and then expect me to believe you.
>>
File: IMG_0634.jpg (274 KB, 1037x771)
274 KB
274 KB JPG
>Thinking guns will protect you
*teleports behind you*
>>
>>144441546
Those reflections don't match
>>
>>144441504
Sorry left thread. Honestly most every primary source by the founding father's is littered here and there with Greek/Roman references. It's usually worded in such a way in the letter to where it is assumed the recipient has it as common knowledge as well or merely needs reminding of a certain event or action taken etc.

It's been a while, but one that comes to mind which may not be super relevant, but still gets my point across is a letter from John Adams to John Quincy Adams in which he urges him to read Thucydides to assist him in any political struggles he faces.

>"My dear Son

As the War in which your Country is engaged will probably hereafter attract your Attention, more than it does at this Time, and as the future Circumstances of your Country, may require other Wars, as well as Councils and Negotiations, similar to those which are now in Agitation, I wish to turn your Thoughts early to such Studies, as will afford you the most solid Instruction and Improvement for the Part which may be allotted you to act on the Stage of Life.

There is no History, perhaps, better adapted to this usefull Purpose than that of Thucidides, an Author, of whom I hope you will make yourself perfect Master, in original Language, which is Greek, the most perfect of all human Languages..."

I am with much Affection your Father

John Adams
>>
>>144441546
>teleports behind me
>already predicted you'd do this since you're a teleporter and it's like the most basic bitch move they all do
>just reaches under coat and gives you both barrels of the sawed off 12g i shoulder carry for this specific situation without even bothering to look at you or draw it.
Heh, nothing personal kid...
>>
>>144441499
Human history is filled with selfish tyrants. To ignore this while trying to give a new country a fighting chance at survival would have been sub optimal. They knew that people needed to be able to match (parity) a standing army to ward off the natural tendency to centralize and stomp all over people's rights.
>>
The idea was literally to keep around decentralized forces of militants that could organize and potentially fight would-be despotic usurpers. It was created by the Founding Fathers to give clemency to an armed rebellion.
>>
>>144441493
>>
>hi /k/
>/k/




Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.