If I think every law abiding citizen has a right to own guns, but the NRA annoys the crap out of me...

DiscoGary wrote:

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

About that...

SIEGEL: And what was the context of this remark?

WITTES: He was writing about a tax dispute between the Pennsylvania General Assembly and the family of the Penns, the proprietary family of the Pennsylvania colony who ruled it from afar. And the legislature was trying to tax the Penn family lands to pay for frontier defense during the French and Indian War. And the Penn family kept instructing the governor to veto. Franklin felt that this was a great affront to the ability of the legislature to govern. And so he actually meant purchase a little temporary safety very literally. The Penn family was trying to give a lump sum of money in exchange for the General Assembly's acknowledging that it did not have the authority to tax it.

SIEGEL: So far from being a pro-privacy quotation, if anything, it's a pro-taxation and pro-defense spending quotation.

WITTES: It is a quotation that defends the authority of a legislature to govern in the interests of collective security. It means, in context, not quite the opposite of what it's almost always quoted as saying but much closer to the opposite than to the thing that people think it means.

But it's good to hear you don't support things like the patriot act, drone strikes on U.S. citizens, and banning religious groups from the country because of terrorism concerns.

I call your obfuscation and raise one small Jefferson just to keep you in the hand:

"...I advise the gun. While this gives a moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprize, and independance to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks."

Here's the original context:

"In fine, we have the most sensible Concern for the poor distressed Inhabitants of the Frontiers. We have taken every Step in our Power, consistent with the just Rights of the Freemen of Pennsylvania, for their Relief, and we have Reason to believe, that in the Midst of their Distresses they themselves do not wish us to go farther. Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Such as were inclined to defend themselves, but unable to purchase Arms and Ammunition, have, as we are informed, been supplied with both, as far as Arms could be procured, out of Monies given by the last Assembly for the King’s Use; and the large Supply of Money offered by this Bill, might enable the Governor to do every Thing else that should be judged necessary for their farther Security, if he shall think fit to accept it. Whether he could, as he supposes, “if his Hands had been properly strengthened, have put the Province into such a Posture of Defence, as might have prevented the present Mischiefs,” seems to us uncertain; since late Experience in our neighbouring Colony of Virginia (which had every Advantage for that Purpose that could be desired) shows clearly, that it is next to impossible to guard effectually an extended Frontier, settled by scattered single Families at two or three Miles Distance, so as to secure them from the insiduous Attacks of small Parties of skulking Murderers: But thus much is certain, that by refusing our Bills from Time to Time, by which great Sums were seasonably offered, he has rejected all the Strength that Money could afford him; and if his Hands are still weak or unable, he ought only to blame himself, or those who have tied them."

Franklin was sympathizing with the Frontier settlers' reluctance to agree to be taxed indefinitely for some temporary safety and he was throwing out the warning to show that he understood their concerns fully. He goes on to say that if they don't agree to this, then they keep themselves open to attacks, so they have a tough call to make.

Your NPR source is right about the wider context of the quote, but wrong about it's meaning. It means exactly what everyone has always thought it meant, and Franklin meant it that way even in this context.

Liberal academics tarnish their credentials with stuff like this.

What's next? Jefferson had slaves?

We should all have atom bombs to protect ourselves from others with atom bombs. Remember it's the individual person, not the tool

Rational thought does not seem to be in abundance when it comes to people who want to remove forearms from the hands of law abiding citizens. The mistaken belief that by disarming the law abiding public one will be safer is just the opposite of what will happen. John Q. Public will be a sitting duck.

Are our forearms even protected by the Bill of Rights?

thejeff wrote:

OLD SMTC SOB wrote:

Rational thought does not seem to be in abundance when it comes to people who want to remove forearms from the hands of law abiding citizens. The mistaken belief that by disarming the law abiding public one will be safer is just the opposite of what will happen. John Q. Public will be a sitting duck.

Are our forearms even protected by the Bill of Rights?

I think they were used in righting the Bill of Rights. But protected? I don't know.

DiscoGary wrote:

Franklin was sympathizing with the Frontier settlers' reluctance to agree to be taxed indefinitely for some temporary safety and he was throwing out the warning to show that he understood their concerns fully. He goes on to say that if they don't agree to this, then they keep themselves open to attacks, so they have a tough call to make.

What's next? Jefferson had slaves?

This is fun. I gave the full text a look-over:

You are partially correct. While the letter is, on the whole, about the right of the legislature to tax the "Proprietary Estate" of the Penn family for frontier defense, Franklin appears to be using the line in question in relation to the frontiersmen, who didn't want the legislature to take any measures that go beyond the "Rights of the Freemen of Pennsylvania" in order to provide security for them. So you're right about how he was using the line.

However, he doesn't go on to say that the frontiersmen have a tough call to make regarding indefinite taxation and safety; the legislature wasn't trying to implement a tax that the frontiersmen were opposed to, they were trying to tax the Penns. Franklin was acknowledging that the frontiersman wouldn't support a different method of raising money even if the legislature did. What he says after the famous line is that the governor needs to do more for the defense of the state by not protecting the Penns from taxation.

In any case, this is deviating from the point. Neither the Franklin nor the Jefferson quote suggest that they would see background checks and smart gun technology as egregious violations of liberty, nor do they support the idea that government should be treated with absolute disdain rather than healthy cynicism.

It's interesting that the people who disagree with any gun control measures on the grounds that we need to be prepared to defend ourselves from government tyranny tend to be the ones who support expanding the military and the surveillance state. It's like trying to protect yourself from a vicious dog on a weak chain by feeding it steroids.

thejeff wrote:

OLD SMTC SOB wrote:

Rational thought does not seem to be in abundance when it comes to people who want to remove forearms from the hands of law abiding citizens. The mistaken belief that by disarming the law abiding public one will be safer is just the opposite of what will happen. John Q. Public will be a sitting duck.

Are our forearms even protected by the Bill of Rights?

Hahahaha spell check screwed me again :)

The Way of Zen wrote:

It's interesting that the people who disagree with any gun control measures on the grounds that we need to be prepared to defend ourselves from government tyranny tend to be the ones who support expanding the military and the surveillance state. It's like trying to protect yourself from a vicious dog on a weak chain by feeding it steroids.

Government tyranny as a reason to disagree with gun control measures isn't really a factor in my opinion, although its discussed frequently. Perhaps it was back in the day of muskets and bows and arrows, but likely not now. I don't see an armed insurrection as a problem that will solve anything. We have the second amendment, the right to vote and the courts. The US military needs to be strengthened and expanded, indeed. The need for additional surveillance of American citizens is obviously up for discussion, given the events we have seen recently in CA. Certainly monitoring of social media posts of people requesting entry to the US is warranted.

OLD SMTC SOB wrote:

.... The US military needs to be strengthened and expanded, indeed...

Yeah, spending as much on our military as the next ten highest spending nations combined is not nearly enough!

I DON'T FEEL SAFE YET!!!!!

Good Donuts wrote:

OLD SMTC SOB wrote:

.... The US military needs to be strengthened and expanded, indeed...

Yeah, spending as much on our military as the next ten highest spending nations combined is not nearly enough!

I DON'T FEEL SAFE YET!!!!!

Nope..............not with Putin on the move, China building their military infrastructure, Iran now awash in cash after the nuke deal debacle and many others. Sad state of affairs the past 8 years has brought.

CoachB wrote:

No, it doesn't make you a gun nut. It makes you a rational human being who is aware of the constitutsion.....specifically that the second amendment has more words in it than, "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed",

Sincerely,

Your local fetus abortin' homo marryin', prius driving, effete a$$, kale eatin' liberal.

You should get a brain transplant. I suggest getting a chicken's one. A definite improvement.

You should not be allowed to coach.

And you should learn how to spell "constitution".

OLD SMTC SOB wrote:

Good Donuts wrote:

Yeah, spending as much on our military as the next ten highest spending nations combined is not nearly enough!

I DON'T FEEL SAFE YET!!!!!

Nope..............not with Putin on the move, China building their military infrastructure, Iran now awash in cash after the nuke deal debacle and many others. Sad state of affairs the past 8 years has brought.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

Don't worry. It's not that people are laughing with you. They are laughing at you.

Good Donuts wrote:

OLD SMTC SOB wrote:

Nope..............not with Putin on the move, China building their military infrastructure, Iran now awash in cash after the nuke deal debacle and many others. Sad state of affairs the past 8 years has brought.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

Don't worry. It's not that people are laughing with you. They are laughing at you.

I think not, the ones with at least half a brain anyway :)

OLD SMTC SOB wrote:

Good Donuts wrote:

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

Don't worry. It's not that people are laughing with you. They are laughing at you.

I think not, the ones with at least half a brain anyway :)

Good one.

Run! Run for your lives!!! They're out to get us!!! Save yourselves!!!!!!

RUN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

thejeff wrote:

...what does that make me?

I don't see the harm in rigorous background checks to purchase assault rifles or in closing the "gun show" loophole.

-A Gun Nut

I agree with you. I just got my CCW (although I'll probably never carry), but I'm voting for Bernie and would never join the NRA.

Uncle Pervy wrote:

thejeff wrote:

...what does that make me?

I don't see the harm in rigorous background checks to purchase assault rifles or in closing the "gun show" loophole.

-A Gun Nut

I agree with you. I just got my CCW (although I'll probably never carry), but I'm voting for Bernie and would never join the NRA.

Voting for Bernie, eh? Ever live in VT?