Dispelling Another Myth About Guns

"America Owes Its Freedom to Gun Owners."
Although the gun nut crowd likes to invoke the image of enraged patriots taking down their trusty squirrel guns from over the mantle and heading off on their own to fight Hitler, it’s not even close to being true and never has been.

The first shots of the Revolutionary war were fired at Concord, where the patriots had gathered to defend their collective armory. Throughout that war patriots like Morris risked their fortunes to buy quantities of muskets and powder from the French, Spanish and Dutch. One of the turning points of the war was the purchase of 80,000 Charleville muskets from the French by the Continental Congress. In 1794, Congress authorized the opening of a federal armory in Springfield to turn out 4,200 muskets annually, while in 1798 the fledgling government contracted with 26 private individuals to produce even more guns…and those publicly owned guns were the ones with which the War of 1812 was fought. Subsequent wars were ALL fought with our collective armaments.

One noted battle in which gun owners DID fight against a common foe was Little Big Horn, where the individual native Americans used their individually owned guns against Custer’s forces. Sad to say, the long term result of that battle has been that native Americans have been treated as second class citizens, usually by the very conservatives promoting the "gun owners saved America" lie (Hello, Bill Janklow!).

the kinds of freaks that are wholly obsessed with having guns kill people.

Oh, and it's really hard to kill someone with a gun if you don't have one.

What exactly is it about these yahoos that boils everything down to a fantasy life-or-death situation? I know that considering you have "powerful enemies" makes you feel important, so the idea that they might one day depose the federal government using their little popgun militias if provoked sends them into an orgasmic frenzy.

I understand that there are some limited situations where having a firearm is warranted, but for the most part rabid gun owners are obsessed and just looking for an excuse to shoot someone.

Oh yeah, I live in Texas where it's legal to carry a gun into church.

-We ought to make the pro-gun nuts in here put that Icon in their sig.

Is it playing with your Mauser? or some other kinky fantasy you have?
Tom

it's very noticeable that our "pro gun democrats" are utterlu unwilling to take any steps not as drastic as plugging their fellow citizens...like posting a pro-Democrat word on any of the dozens of gun owners forums that stain the WWW.

Amazingly, we get nothing but lame excuse after lame excuse down here as to why this can't be done.

"I live in Texas where it's legal to carry a gun into church"
Yeah, we've had triggerhappy chums sniveling aloud here because they can't skulk to church with popguns in their pockets....

You are doing just want Rove wants. I would be happy for a
democratic vote from gun owners especially in states like
Tennessee which could go to Kerry if we can avoid the constant
demonization of anybody who owns a gun.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

" if we can avoid the constant
demonization of anybody who owns a gun"
Yeah, it sure is "demonizing" to point what lying crap the RKBA cause is....

Meanwhile, it's amazing our "pro gun democrats" don't got a word to say about gun owners' forums, the NRA, and the gun lobby openly slandering Kerry and Edwards..

The opening shots of the Revolution were fired at Lexington, MA. Concord is where for the first time the Local Militia (Minute Men) were ordered to return fire.

The "armory" at Concord was a storage of Powder and Ball. Which had been moved before the British Regulars arrived.

The weapons used by the Colonials on that April day were largely rifles and "Squirrel guns". The Colonial period rifle had the disadvantage of taking 25 seconds to reload as opposed to 20 seconds for the Musket used by the British Regulars. On this date it proved to not be a significant disadvantage.

and it continues to this day.

I guess those "Indians" should have just laid down and died
since using guns to fight back makes them "bad gun owners".

You've missed the mark entirely.

Better yet. Take a couple of college level history classes that concentrate on the Revolution. Does replacement of lost and damaged arms mean anything?

Take the course and you'll discover the truth had nothing to do with what you're spouting.

But it's hilarious to see the Gotta Getta Gun fraternity has nothing but horseshit, as usual....

I like guns. Some people hate guns and I respect that.

Some men like other men, and some women enjoy other women, I have to admit that I don't understand gay people, but as an understanding Democrat I respect their needs and wants.

I was happy for all gay Americans when the bill to ban gay marriage was voted down. They have the right to be gay just as I have the right to own an AR15.

Basically we are talking about fear.

Some republicans fear that gay people will harm America (morality Aids/HIV etc)

Some Democrats think gun owners are a threat to there safety (shootings etc).

The bottom line is judge the individual, do not take rights away (gun ownership) due to the mistakes of a few criminals.

Would it be fair to ban gay people because a couple of them gave someone Aids?HIV? hell no Just as it is not fair to take my AR15 away because some criminal asshole shoots up a 7-11/store.
Tom

"The bottom line is judge the individual"
Ask me how I judge people who post right wing crap attacking liberal Democrats sometime....

Just because you disagree with me owning guns does this mean they should be made illegal?
Tom

what are you referring too "attacking Democrats"
Tom

"Tell the liberal Democrats we want practical crime bills not useless bills.
• Tell the liberal Democrats to quit spending our valuable tax dollars"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=82842&mesg_id=82842

Tell the right wing shithesds at glocksucker.com, where you dredged that bit of rubbish from they can go fuck themselves, Tom.

Tom

part of american culture.

presenting actual history instead of NRA horseshit is "demonizing" gun owners....

Well, they'll be singing a different tune when Dianne Feinstein gets her hands on their guns...and squeezes. Good and hard.

Feinstein.

on its website and yet all you ever hear from our "pro gun democrats" is how unfair it is to point out what a cesspool of right wing shit that group is....

"Subsequent wars were ALL fought with our collective armaments."

didn't he carry (and lose) a personally owned .357 magnum revolver (model 66, IIRC) in Vietnam?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I've heard silly attacks on Kerry from gun owners, but the idea that all of the US soldiers in the Viet Nam war depended on a single popgun that John Kerry brought from home (and that the war by extension failed because he lost it) is about the silliest yet (snicker).

"but the idea that all of the US soldiers in the Viet Nam war depended on a single popgun that John Kerry brought from home (and that the war by extension failed because he lost it) is about the silliest yet"

No, I didn't. I offered a single example of somebody taking a personally owned gun to war.

arrived at the armory?


A history lesson from the "gun nuts":

‘The American Colonies In The 17th Century’, Osgood, Vol. 1, ch. XIII, affirms in reference to the early system of defense in New England- ‘In all the colonies, as in England, the militia system was based on the principle of the assize of arms. This implied the general obligation of all adult male inhabitants to possess arms, and, with certain exceptions, to <307 U.S. 174, 180> cooperate in the work of defence.’ ‘The possession of arms also implied the possession of ammunition, and the authorities paid quite as much attention to the latter as to the former.’ ‘A year later (1632) it was ordered that any single man who had not furnished himself with arms might be put out to service, and this became a permanent part of the legislation of the colony (Massachusetts).’
Also ‘Clauses intended to insure the possession of arms and ammunition by all who were subject to military service appear in all the important enactments concerning military affairs. Fines were the penalty for delinquency, whether of towns or individuals. According to the usage of the times, the infantry of Massachusetts consisted of pikemen and musketeers. The law, as enacted in 1649 and thereafter, provided that each of the former should be armed with a pike, corselet, head-piece, sword, and knapsack. The musketeer should carry a ‘good fixed musket,’ not under bastard musket bore, not less than three feet, nine inches, nor more than four feet three inches in length, a priming wire, scourer, and mould, a sword, rest, bandoleers, one pound of powder, twenty bullets, and two fathoms of match. The law also required that two-thirds of each company should be musketeers.’
The General Court of Massachusetts, January Session 1784 (Laws and Resolves 1784, c. 55, pp. 140, 142), provided for the organization and government of the Militia. It directed that the Train Band should ‘contain all able bodied men, from sixteen to forty years of age, and the Alarm List, all other men under sixty years of age, ....’ Also, ‘That every non-commissioned officer and private soldier of the said militia not under the controul of parents, masters or guardians, and being of sufficient ability therefor in the judgment of the Selectmen of the town in which he shall dwell, shall equip himself, and be constantly provided with a good fire arm, &c.’
By an Act passed April 4, 1786 (Laws 1786, c. 25), the New York Legislature directed: ‘That every able-bodied Male Person, be- <307 U.S. 174, 181> ing a Citizen of this State, or of any of the United States, and residing in this State, (except such Persons as are herein after excepted) and who are of the Age of Sixteen, and under the Age of Forty-five Years, shall, by the Captain or commanding Officer of the Beat in which such Citizens shall reside, within four Months after the passing of this Act, be enrolled in the Company of such Beat. ... That every Citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within three Months thereafter, provide himself, at his own Expense, with a good Musket or Firelock, a sufficient Bayonet and Belt, a Pouch with a Box therein to contain not less than Twenty-four Cartridges suited to the Bore of his Musket or Firelock, each Cartridge containing a proper Quantity of Powder and Ball, two spare Flints, a Blanket and Knapsack; ....’
The General Assembly of Virginia, October, 1785 (12 Hening’s Statutes c. 1, p. 9 et seq.), declared: ‘The defense and safety of the commonwealth depend upon having its citizens properly armed and taught the knowledge of military duty.’ It further provided for organization and control of the Militia and directed that ‘All free male persons between the ages of eighteen and fifty years,’ with certain exceptions, ‘shall be inrolled or formed into companies.’ ‘There shall be a private muster of every company once in two months.’ Also that ‘Every officer and soldier shall appear at his respective muster-field on the day appointed, by eleven o’clock in the forenoon, armed, equipped, and accoutred, as follows: ... every non-commissioned officer and private with a good, clean musket carrying an ounce...



Do you recognize the source Bench?

Why did the Contra Costa gun loonies sue under the First Amendment and not the Second?