Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: Beware of Rampant Revisionism

  1. #1
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA

    Beware of Rampant Revisionism

    I posted the text below to the Giffords thread on PhysicsForums. In the past they've been pretty good at allowing us carriers to express our point of view.

    Unfortunately, one of the staff disagreed with it because it runs contrary to their personal point of view. Instead of responding with their own point of view, in the spirit of open debate, they simply deleted it. No warning. No comment. Just *poof!" gone in silence.

    More and more of this will happen all over the Internet as the days go on, so be on your toes for posts that go "bye-bye in the middle of the night." I've had this not only happen there, but on several news websites where my posts have never disappeared before.

    My post there:

    Yes, actually, they most certainly did. Even kids, like my grandfather, for two reasons: hunting and protection. Had there been someone in the immediate vicinity proficient in firearms carrying at the time Congresswoman Giffords was shot, such as myself or many of my friends, this tragic incident would have ended sooner and with less lives lost.

    Congress released a report back in Feb, 1982 on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. I've attached it. Please reference page 8, which explains how, in Virginia, residents were even required to carry arms while travelling, as well as to church (excerpt, below).

    The entire document is quite a read, and casts serious doubt on all this ridiculous revisionist history we're hearing lately that would have us believe arms weren't or shouldn't be part of our lives.

    Around 1913, my grandfather began carrying his .410 shotgun to and from school, as did his other fifth-grade classmates. It's just what was done back then, for food was scarce, but game was plenty. If you caught something on the way home from school, you ate a lot better come suppertime than if you missed.

    I still have it, and keep it in my father's gun safe. It's a collector's item these days - far too old to shoot.

    Here's that excerpt from the report:

    In the colonies, availability of hunting and need for defense led to armament statutes comparable to those
    of the early Saxon times. In 1623, Virginia forbade its colonists to travel unless the were "well armed"; in
    1631 it required colonists to engage in target practice on Sunday and "to bring their peeces to church." 26
    In 1658 it required every householder to have a functioning firearm within his house and in 1673 its laws
    provided that a citizen who claimed he was too poor to purchase a firearm would have one purchased for
    him by the government, which would then require him to pay a reasonable price when able to do so. 27 In
    Massachusetts, the first session of the legislature ordered that not only freemen, but also indentured
    servants own firearms and in 1644 it imposed a stern 6 shilling fine upon any citizen who was not armed."

    Is it still necessary today? Yes, it is. There were 23 murders in my city last year, two in my general area. I realize the odds of my encountering trouble are low, but they do exist, and it wouldn't be the first time I was assaulted. Both my country and my state allows for the carry of firearms, and many of us here in Colorado, as well as a few on this forum, exercise that right.

    Why? Simple: We choose not to be a victim of violent crime. I believe that when seconds count, the police are just minutes away, which is why 23 people in my city were murdered last year instead of 0. I know some people feel different, choosing to instead rely on the police, or the relatively low stastic that you'll be a victim of violent crime, and that's ok.

    That's their choice, and I respect it. This is mine, and I ask that you respect it in the same measure, whether you agree with it or not.

    You cannot outlaw firearms. You can only outlaw law-abiding citizens like myself from carrying them. Outlaws will continue to carry them, and wreck havoc in the absence of a population who is no longer able to protect themselves, as always happens when a general populace is disarmed. The idea that we should all just get along is a pipe dream for one thing: the criminals don't believe in it!
    Last edited by since9; 01-18-2011 at 01:32 AM.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. OO-RAH!!! Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and other founding documents.

    As for President Trump, he's getting the job done.

  2. #2
    Regular Member frommycolddeadhands's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Knob Noster, MO
    Excellent article.
    God is the one driving this stagecoach, I'm just riding shotgun.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Grennsboro NC
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    IUnfortunately, one of the staff disagreed with it because it runs contrary to their personal point of view. Instead of responding with their own point of view, in the spirit of open debate, they simply deleted it. No warning. No comment. Just *poof!" gone in silence.

    Maybe that moderator lives in Maryland... That's how they do things there--*poof*, down the memory hole...
    “A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.”
    –Mark Twain

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts