Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Given that you you choose to be wrong, you are correct.This is why arguing with people like you is futile.Sigh.His exact words were thus:
"Rebellion against a king may be pardoned, or lightly punished, but the man who dares to rebel against the laws of a republic ought to suffer death." - Sam Adams.
You're arging that SA would have accepted tryany under the laws of a Republic.
You need say no more.
Were we a republic when Sam Adams rebelled?That great patriot Sam Adams thinks people who rebel against the laws of a republic ought to be put to death -- hung.
Yet he himself rebelled against the law.
Interesting.
Seriously. You guys aren't even trying.
You're just phoning it in.
Though in a Constituted Commonwealth, standing upon its own Basis, and acting according to its own Nature, that is, acting for the preservation of the Community, there can be but one Supream Power, which is the Legislative, to which all the rest are and must be subordinate, yet the Legislative being only a Fiduciary Power to act for certain ends, there remains still in the People a Supream Power to remove or alter the Legislative, when they find the Legislative act contrary to the trust reposed in them. For all Power given with trust for the attaining an end, being limited by that end, whenever that end is manifestly neglected, or opposed, the trust must necessarily be forfeited, and the Power devolve into the hands of those that gave it, who may place it anew where they shall think best for their safety and security. And thus the Community perpetually retains a Supream Power of saving themselves from the attempts and designs of any Body, even of their Legislators, whenever they shall be so foolish, or so wicked, as to lay and carry on designs against the Liberties and Properties of the Subject. For no Man, or Society of Men, having a Power to deliver up their Preservation, or consequently the means of it, to the Absolute Will and arbitrary Dominion of another; whenever any one shall go about to bring them into such a Slavish Condition, they will always have a right to preserve what they have not a Power to part with; and to rid themselves of those who invade this Fundamental, Sacred, and unalterable Law of Self-Preservation, for which they enter'd into Society. And thus the Community may be said in this respect to be always the Supream Power, but not as considered under any Form of Government, because this Power of the People can never take place till the Government be dissolved. --John Locke, Second Treatise of Civil Government, 149
So you've debunked the Department of Justice, is that your claim?
Can we view the scientific methods and procedures that were used to debunk the DoJ scientific procedures?
How about the 2012 one that again showed the same result?
Series
And specifically what result is that? Your link is not to any specific article.
You are far more likely to survive
a violent assault if you defend yourself with a gun.
Resisting with a gun 6%
Did nothing at all 25%
Resisted with a knife 40%
Non-violent resistance 45%
U.S. Department of Justice, Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, Rape Victimization in 26 American Cities, 1979 60
Department of Justice's National Crime Victimization Survey 61
U.S. Department of Justice 62
U.S. Department of Justice 63
British Home Office – no a pro-gun organization by any mean
From these same studies.
Of the 2,500,000 annual self-defense cases using guns, more than 7.7% are by women
defending themselves against sexual abuse.
Fact:
When a woman was armed with a gun or knife, only 3% of the attempted rapes are
successful, compared to 32% when unarmed.
Fact:
The probability of serious injury from an attack is 2.5 times greater for women offering no
resistance than for women resisting with a gun. Men also benefit from using a gun, but the
benefits are smaller: offering no resistance is 1.4 times more likely to result in serious injury than
resisting with a gun.
Fact:
27% of women keep a gun in the house.
Fact:
37.6 million women either own or have rapid access to guns.
Fact:
In 1966 the city of Orlando responded to a wave of sexual assaults by offering firearms
training classes to women. The number of rapes dropped by nearly 90%.
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/Digitization/55878NCJRS.pdf
Of course he would. To argue otherwise is ignorant or dishonest.Were we a republic when Sam Adams rebelled?Yet he himself rebelled against the law.
Interesting.
Seriously. You guys aren't even trying.
You're just phoning it in.
So the Lockean Samuel Adams would not have rebelled against a Republic gone usurpative?
So you've debunked the Department of Justice, is that your claim?
Can we view the scientific methods and procedures that were used to debunk the DoJ scientific procedures?
How about the 2012 one that again showed the same result?
Series
And specifically what result is that? Your link is not to any specific article.
You already saw the results. All of these statistics/figures remained virtually unchanged: The link is at the bottom of the quote, it's a direct link to the DoJ survey, which you can examine yourself. The second link was to all of the successive studies, which also yielded the exact same numbers.
Department of Justice Statistics:
You are far more likely to survive
a violent assault if you defend yourself with a gun.
Resisting with a gun 6%
Did nothing at all 25%
Resisted with a knife 40%
Non-violent resistance 45%
U.S. Department of Justice, Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, Rape Victimization in 26 American Cities, 1979 60
Department of Justice's National Crime Victimization Survey 61
U.S. Department of Justice 62
U.S. Department of Justice 63
British Home Office no a pro-gun organization by any mean
From these same studies.
Of the 2,500,000 annual self-defense cases using guns, more than 7.7% are by women
defending themselves against sexual abuse.
Fact:
When a woman was armed with a gun or knife, only 3% of the attempted rapes are
successful, compared to 32% when unarmed.
Fact:
The probability of serious injury from an attack is 2.5 times greater for women offering no
resistance than for women resisting with a gun. Men also benefit from using a gun, but the
benefits are smaller: offering no resistance is 1.4 times more likely to result in serious injury than
resisting with a gun.
Fact:
27% of women keep a gun in the house.
Fact:
37.6 million women either own or have rapid access to guns.
Fact:
In 1966 the city of Orlando responded to a wave of sexual assaults by offering firearms
training classes to women. The number of rapes dropped by nearly 90%.
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/Digitization/55878NCJRS.pdf
I'll bet you thought that made sense when you typed it.Given that you you choose to be wrong, you are correct.This is why arguing with people like you is futile.Sigh.
You're arging that SA would have accepted tryany under the laws of a Republic.
You need say no more.
You're seriously delusional if you think what we have here in America is a tyranny.
Most normal people recognize that's basically rubber room material.
The plenary argument for rebellion by the English North American colonies, held by all that supported it, centers around the presence of tyranny, not the form of government; it is impossible to argue otherwise.
In that, the form of government is irrelevant.
His exact words were thus:Against tyranny.Against a King.
Not in a Constitutional Republic.
The form of government is irrelevant.
"Rebellion against a king may be pardoned, or lightly punished, but the man who dares to rebel against the laws of a republic ought to suffer death." - Sam Adams.
You know that little thing called Shays Rebellion?
You can thank that little blood of tyrants squabble for letting the Federalists win the battle for more powerful federal government.
It was that little bloody exercise that brought George Washington to the convention and the Constitutional re-write formed that thing y'all hate: a strong federal government.
Hey lint speck -- it was one of your fellow loonies that brought up Rome:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/8779009-post240.html
You even thanked the loony.
Brain laughed it off, and said Rome, really?
Hey lint speck -- it was one of your fellow loonies that brought up Rome:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/8779009-post240.html
You even thanked the loony.
Brain laughed it off, and said Rome, really?
He laughed it off under the premise that Rome was NOT a Republic, which is a false premise.
You're asking examples of LONG STANDING Republics and Democracies which suffered revolutions. You were given one.
Are you claiming that Rome was not a Republic?
I answered your question, "Can you name some country with long standing voting rights that ever had a revolution?" Can you explain to me what makes any of those countries not long standing? Egypt is much older than the US, which makes your insistence on examining only long standing democracies absurd. By any standard that I can reasonably apply to a country, the US is not long standing.I love how you guys keep ignoring the long standing part. Try again.
Come to think of it, that might explain your insistence on that standard, you know it is impossible to challenge. That would require you to acully be smarter than you post, but it is possible.
And how long has Egypt had voting rights? Nobody is surprised they are having lots of problems, they just ran out a dictator. You just can't name any country with real long standing voting rights that has had a revolution.
Ouch...The Supreme Court, and every other court in this country.
That wouldn't keep anyone from owning a gun...except criminals. Imagine if we could track how criminals get guns.
The ATF actually does a pretty good job of that. They actually say that most criminals get their guns from federally licensed dealers who don't follow the law.
Funny thing, the ATF is actually empowered to force all FFL holders to maintain records of all sales, and tracks all sales to those dealers. That means they could effectively shut most illegal firearms deals simply by enforcing the current laws.
I wonder why they even bother doing things like Fast and Furious.
Then post a link that specifically states these.
Then post a link that specifically states these.
How can a link to the original source itself not be sufficient?
Here maybe you missed it the first three times:
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/Digi...55878NCJRS.pdf
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/Digi...55878NCJRS.pdf
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/Digi...55878NCJRS.pdf
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/Digi...55878NCJRS.pdf
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/Digi...55878NCJRS.pdf
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/Digi...55878NCJRS.pdf
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/Digi...55878NCJRS.pdf
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/Digi...55878NCJRS.pdf
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/Digi...55878NCJRS.pdf
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/Digi...55878NCJRS.pdf
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/Digi...55878NCJRS.pdf
I actually know more about history than you would ever guess. Lets try to stay modern shall we? I mean Rome, really? Did they have a revolution?
At least two. I don't even claim to know history, and I know that.
Ok, could everyone citizen in the Roman empire vote? Did they have phones? TV's? How long did it take to get a message from one end of the empire to the other? Sorry but your example is extremely weak. There is no country at all similar to the US that has ever had a revolution.
Hey lint speck -- it was one of your fellow loonies that brought up Rome:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/8779009-post240.html
You even thanked the loony.
Brain laughed it off, and said Rome, really?
He laughed it off under the premise that Rome was NOT a Republic, which is a false premise.
You're asking examples of LONG STANDING Republics and Democracies which suffered revolutions. You were given one.
Are you claiming that Rome was not a Republic?
It's countries where the people have had real long standing voting rights. Rome was not that. But it does show how desperate you guys are if you have to go all the way back to Rome for a really bad example.
I'll bet you thought that made sense when you typed it.Given that you you choose to be wrong, you are correct.This is why arguing with people like you is futile.
You're seriously delusional if you think what we have here in America is a tyranny.
Most normal people recognize that's basically rubber room material.
The plenary argument for rebellion by the English North American colonies, held by all that supported it, centers around the presence of tyranny, not the form of government; it is impossible to argue otherwise.
In that, the form of government is irrelevant.
There was an actual dictator there, and these goofs don't even recognize it.I answered your question, "Can you name some country with long standing voting rights that ever had a revolution?" Can you explain to me what makes any of those countries not long standing? Egypt is much older than the US, which makes your insistence on examining only long standing democracies absurd. By any standard that I can reasonably apply to a country, the US is not long standing.
Come to think of it, that might explain your insistence on that standard, you know it is impossible to challenge. That would require you to acully be smarter than you post, but it is possible.
And how long has Egypt had voting rights? Nobody is surprised they are having lots of problems, they just ran out a dictator. You just can't name any country with real long standing voting rights that has had a revolution.
and most the fighters in the legions were barbarians that couldn't vote. How is that at all comparable to the us?
then why did you initiate a conversation about rome to begin with?
It wasn't me. I have been stating there isn't a single example, and nobody has proven me wrong. Try to keep up.
Hey lint speck -- it was one of your fellow loonies that brought up Rome:and most the fighters in the legions were barbarians that couldn't vote. How is that at all comparable to the us?
then why did you initiate a conversation about rome to begin with?
http://www.usmessageboard.com/8779009-post240.html
You even thanked the loony.
Brain laughed it off, and said Rome, really?
You've never slapped me down once. Not ever.His exact words were thus:Against tyranny.
The form of government is irrelevant.
"Rebellion against a king may be pardoned, or lightly punished, but the man who dares to rebel against the laws of a republic ought to suffer death." - Sam Adams.
You know that little thing called Shays Rebellion?
You can thank that little blood of tyrants squabble for letting the Federalists win the battle for more powerful federal government.
It was that little bloody exercise that brought George Washington to the convention and the Constitutional re-write formed that thing y'all hate: a strong federal government.
Hate to slap you down again, but his actual words were "(I)n monarchies the crime of treason and rebellion may admit of being pardoned or lightly punished, but the man who dares rebel against the laws of a republic ought to suffer death." He also insisted that everyone invovled in the rebellion be immediately tossed in jail.
His position was immediately rejected by the General in charge of putting down Shay's Rebellion because he, correctly, pointed out that there weren't enough jails in all of New England to hold them. The legislature responded by granting anyone who participated in the rebellion an opportunity to repent, which was leniency, and John Hancock eventually pardoned almost everyone who participated in it.
I guess that, unequivocally, proves that Adams was wrong.
You can read about it here.
Shays' Rebellion - From Revolution to Constitution
And more to the point, as I said, it was that rebellion that helped shape our Constitution in one where it had a strong Federal government."Four thousand people signed confessions acknowledging participation in the events of the rebellion (in exchange for amnesty); several hundred participants were eventually indicted on charges relating to the rebellion. Most of these were pardoned under a general amnesty that only excluded a few ringleaders.
Eighteen men were convicted and sentenced to death, but most of these were either overturned on appeal, pardoned, or had their sentences commuted.
Two of the condemned men, John Bly and Charles Rose, were hanged on December 6, 1787.[51] Shays himself was pardoned in 1788 and he returned to Massachusetts from hiding in the Vermont woods.[52]
He was, however, vilified by the Boston press, who painted him as an archetypal anarchist opposed to the government.[53] He later moved to the Conesus, New York, area, where he lived until he died poor and obscure in 1825."
