And I get this stuff in

American History

Not the childrens edition of American History, ie. the conservative fairy tale.

Right, so the fact that ONE OF TWO of the events that upset the colonists, and which occurred in Virginia (a slave state) happened to upset them specifically because of possible slave uprisings, means that the only reason they cared about guns was because of slave uprisings and Indian treaties? You don't see any problem with that reasoning?

What about the fact that colonists in Pennsylvania and other northern states (non-slave) states were just as concerned about gun rights, and had very little direct fear of a slave uprising? (They did figure they might eventually have to pay for / fight against a southern slave uprising if there ever was one, but that was more one of the negatives of union for them than a real concern or a motivation for their interest in guns).

No, I don't because if you were informed about American history, which you do not seem to be, you would know that guns and militias were an institution that was implimented in the south specifically to defend against slave uprisings. That is why on Mainland US militias were nearly all white when everywhere else in the americas they were mixed or even all black. I know that the fear of Native or slave insurections was the driving force behind self defense forces throughout the US in those times.

And if you have read you would see that I said there was a fear of the federal government.

There is also hunting and the fact that each and every man was entrusted with keeping the peace in those times, but underlying them all were very real fears of the people they oppressed (even the crackers).

"What about the fact that colonists in Pennsylvania and other northern states (non-slave) states were just as concerned about gun rights, and had very little direct fear of a slave uprising?"

Ever hear about Native Americans, ie. the second part of my statement? Read 'Our Savage Neighbors.' Northern States with the exception of some urban enclaves were very scared of a real or Imagined native threat. So the RELATIVE lack of slaves makes no difference.

And the fact that you said northern states were non-slave is patently false until a couple decades before the Civil War. You knew that... right?

and by the way the native fears were ESPECIALLY true in Pennsylvania

SC,

"you would know that guns and militias were an institution that was implimented in the south specifically to defend against slave uprisings."

Right, but as I pointed out, there were just as many guns and militias in the north.

"And the fact that you said northern states were non-slave is patently false until a couple decades before the Civil War. You knew that... right? "

There were very few slaves in the north, and uprisings were virtually a non-worry. Abolition (gradual) was passed in Pennsylvania in 1780, 7 years before the Constitutional convention. In Connecticut, it was 1784; in Massachusetts, 1783; in New York, 1799; in New Jersey, 1804; and in Rhode Island and New Hampshire, while laws were not actually passed (except, arguably, language in the NH constitution), the institution had completely dried up by 1820 and 1840, respectively.

But you knew that, right?

In any case, even by the 1780s, slavery was not cause for fear in the northern states, which is the relevant question here.

"And if you have read you would see that I said there was a fear of the federal government."

There was fear of the federal government enforcing Indian treaties, and this was a major motivation for wanting an amendment protecting arms? Citation, please.

As for Indians in Pennsylvania, yes, they were certainly one of the motivations. There were reasonably frequent Indian massacres there (massacres of colonists, that is) in the 1780s, so that was not totally unreasonable. Other things were just as much a motivation, though -- everybody was the army at that time, e.g., and the ideas of resisting tyrants and defending oneself, to say nothing of hunting, were still popular.

In other words, the two reasons you gave were actually NOT reasons, in the north, and there were a lot of other reasons (a couple of them tangentially related). You might want to come off your high horse. You're not the only one who can read grown-up history books.

"Right, but as I pointed out, there were just as many guns and militias in the north."

Show me your references. I am quite positive in the North East seaboard there was not the same militia culture as there was in the south with the exception of the crisis years with Britain.

"There were very few slaves in the north, and uprisings were virtually a non-worry."

Wrong, there were not "very few"

"Abolition (gradual) was passed in Pennsylvania in 1780, 7 years before the Constitutional convention. In Connecticut, it was 1784; in Massachusetts, 1783; in New York, 1799; in New Jersey, 1804"

Absolutely false.

These were beginning dates of long processes that lasted, in some cases, to the Civil War itself. I'm glad you were happy to check wikipedia, but as we all know Wikipedia does not tell the truth and Manumission is NOT Abolition.

And of course it is completely wrong to call Virginia a "Slave State" in 1774 on more than one level.

"In any case, even by the 1780s, slavery was not cause for fear in the northern states, which is the relevant question here."

It absolutely was. In the 1780s very few slaves had been freed. If you knew how manumission worked, you would understand that.

"There was fear of the federal government enforcing Indian treaties, and this was a major motivation for wanting an amendment protecting arms? Citation, please."

American Leviathan, Patrick Griffin. Have fun.

"As for Indians in Pennsylvania, yes, they were certainly one of the motivations. There were reasonably frequent Indian massacres there (massacres of colonists, that is) in the 1780s, so that was not totally unreasonable. Other things were just as much a motivation, though -- everybody was the army at that time, e.g., and the ideas of resisting tyrants and defending oneself, to say nothing of hunting, were still popular."

As I think I mentioned hunting... and everybody was a policeman. AND they were scared shitless of Indians and slaves, much more than they probably should have been. That book I suggested to you last post described how sensationalized stories led people to believe that Native Americans were standing at the edge of the woods just waiting to scalp anyone they could.


"In other words, the two reasons you gave were actually NOT reasons, in the north, and there were a lot of other reasons (a couple of them tangentially related). You might want to come off your high horse. You're not the only one who can read grown-up history books. "

Hey believe what you want. If you want to rewrite American history and say that Americans did not have guns to defend themselves against slave insurections and Native attacks go ahead. The bottom line is I can cite history books off my high horse that defend my points. You have yet to do so once.

On top of the two i've mentioned before look at Woody Holton and Gary Nash who both support my assertions.

Or, as usual, you can just call my ideas absurd with no factual basis. Just pull "facts" out of the air that prove I am wrong. Its the Semck (conservative) way.

"Other things were just as much a motivation, though -- everybody was the army at that time, e.g., and the ideas of resisting tyrants and defending oneself, to say nothing of hunting, were still popular.""

On what planet was everybody "in the army" in the 1780s.

I didn't read all the way through one of your questions. Fear of the feds enforcing settlement lines was not a reason for a second ammendment nor did I ever say it was. It was a reason why they organized themselves and "feared oppression" as Victorious asked.

SC,

OK, so basically, you're now admitting you were wrong. You originally said that the colonists wanted guns to defend against slaves and oppress indians, and now you've admitted there were a bunch of other reasons too. Fair enough. All I wanted.

Well, almost all. It's still pretty absurd to suggest that Pennsylvania lived in fear of a slave revolt in Pennsylvania. The law I mentioned did ban new slavery (current slaves were not freed). But even suppose it hadn't. There were 6000 slaves in Pennsylvania in the 1880s, while there were over 400,000 whites. A serious uprising was not a big concern, however gradual you may wish to portray the abolition process. Compare to South Carolina, which was about half slaves, and which did indeed spend most of its time worrying about uprisings.

"It absolutely was. In the 1780s very few slaves had been freed. If you knew how manumission worked, you would understand that."

And so we see that this statement is completely irrelevant. If you knew how logic and argument worked, you would understand that.

Incidentally, why do I keep singling out Pennsylvania? Naturally because of the Pennsylvania ratifying convention's minority report, which made clear that that state cared deeply about gun rights.

Oh, I also liked this:

"If you want to rewrite American history and say that Americans did not have guns to defend themselves against slave insurections and Native attacks go ahead. "

Notice I said that the colonists DID have guns (partially) to defend themselves from native attacks. But that wasn't your original claim. That would be to "oppress native Americans." Now there is no doubt whatever that both went on, but surely you can see the distinction between oppressing native Americans and defending themselves against native attacks?

Or oppressing Indians and "defending against native attacks" were two halves of the same coin. Native attacks were the result of a cycle of violence that took a far larger toll on Natives than whites. Colonists defended themselves against war parties when drunk white settlers would whipe out whole villages or burn/steal Indian crops. The answer was an "Indian Massacre" where Indians would attack a town to exact revenge and take prisoners to replace those killed in their kinship networks. Again I suggest "Our savage neighbors" to educate yourself.

And again I suggest you stop pretending you know what you are talking about when you obviously don't

"OK, so basically, you're now admitting you were wrong. You originally said that the colonists wanted guns to defend against slaves and oppress indians, and now you've admitted there were a bunch of other reasons too. Fair enough. All I wanted."

No If you read I said they needed them to oppress indians and slaves and to prevent the federal government from doing anything about it. Was it the only reason? No. Was it a main reason. No doubt. If you don't think so you have no idea what you are talking about, which you dont

What I said is that it didn't lead to the second ammendment directly, which I never claimed int he first place/ You put those words in my mouth as you love to do

"And so we see that this statement is completely irrelevant. If you knew how logic and argument worked, you would understand that."

It has EVERYTHING to do. In the 1780s there were still many blacks free and enslaved in the north. So much in fact that there were major questions on what to do with the "dangerous" freed slaves and those that would be freed. It has everything to do withy ur statement that slaves were not seen as a threat in the north. Relative to the south that is true. Overall however, that is false. And again you were wrong, most slaves were NOT freed in the 1780s. It was the beginning of a long process of manumission not "abolition" as you mistakenly stated.

"Incidentally, why do I keep singling out Pennsylvania? Naturally because of the Pennsylvania ratifying convention's minority report, which made clear that that state cared deeply about gun rights. "

It was also the scene of the nastiest fighting against Native Americans at the time, and the party that was in power was very much associated with the Irish and German settlers that were fighting agaisnt the natives.

So, in skimming this thread, the gungrabbers think that no one should ever at any point in history have had guns (are they bowgrabbers too, I wonder?) while the gunhavers think that they were justified at some points in history, even today (under varying schemes of "control"). Is that about the size of it?

Well, as the Romans used to say, "Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscripti catapultas habebunt":
When catapults are outlawed, only criminals will have catapults.

The problem here is I let idiots like you go on the attack all the time. How about I go on the attack to show how little you know.

You called Colonial Virginia a "Slave State" when every colony (not state) had slaves at the time.

You stated that everybody was "in the army" in the 1780s. Barring the fact that a great deal of the population wasn't even elligible for the militia, there was no army from 1783 until mad anthony wayne in 1791.

You confused abolition with manumission which are very different processes that have very different results

You claimed that colonists "defending against Indian attacks" has nothing to do with Indian oppression when they were settling on Indian land and often provoking those attacks with their actions.

You have yet to cite one book or historical argument other than a gunfighteresque recitation of what you remember from fifth grade Social Studies class.

Every problem you have had with something I said comes from a poor understanding of events or context in the revolutionary era. Something I must apologize for not providing because I am used to talking to people who know what is going on.

You are clueless, stop pretending that you know a thing about American History and just express your views on the subject as what they are, ill informed opinions based on a Glenn Beck reading of the American History.

Next I am going to hear that the United states is a Christian country.

"So, in skimming this thread, the gungrabbers think that no one should ever at any point in history have had guns (are they bowgrabbers too, I wonder?) while the gunhavers think that they were justified at some points in history, even today (under varying schemes of "control"). Is that about the size of it?"

I think people should be able to have guns now. If there is ANY point to be made in history it is that unlimited gun rights in 1787 where the gun was a smoothbore musket ARE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from 2012 where a guy walks into a movie theater with a LEGAL assault rifle with 100 round drum magazines.

If it is legal to have assault rifles and 100 round drum magazines, skitzoids with internet access will have assault rifles with 100 round drum magazines.

"The answer was an "Indian Massacre" where Indians would attack a town to exact revenge and take prisoners to replace those killed in their kinship networks. Again I suggest "Our savage neighbors" to educate yourself.

And again I suggest you stop pretending you know what you are talking about when you obviously don't "

Thanks, Santa. I guess that the once-per-message insult is just the cost of talking to you. Anyway, here's the thing. You're right that there was this cycle of violence. The problem is it was not precisely directed. If you were a completely nonviolent, Indian-loving white settler, there is still a chance that you would become the target for the revenge attack from an Indian tribe that had, itself, been the victim of a violent attack from other whites.

Unless you were so down with the Indian cause that you were willing to become the blood sacrifice of atonement in this way, it would therefore behoove you to have a gun to defend yourself, and yet, that gun would have NOTHING to do with wanting to oppress Indians yourself.

So you see, while they were closely related, they were still distinct things, and were completely distinct motivations for wanting to have guns.

"No If you read I said they needed them to oppress indians and slaves and to prevent the federal government from doing anything about it. Was it the only reason? No. Was it a main reason. No doubt. If you don't think so you have no idea what you are talking about, which you dont

What I said is that it didn't lead to the second ammendment directly, which I never claimed int he first place/ You put those words in my mouth as you love to do"

As to the second amendment -- it was proposed, one must assume, for much the same reasons that people cared about having guns in the first place. So I don't follow this reasoning, which looks a lot like you're just trying to disassociate yourself from your earlier, refuted claim.

As for whether it was "a main reason." I've already said defense against the Indians was _A_ main reason. You continue to talk about slave uprisings in Pennsylvania and the contours of the legal end of slavery there. I've already quoted for you the actual numbers of slaves and whites, which you've ignored. Black uprisings in the north were far less of a preoccupation than white uprisings like Shay's rebellion.

Again, this is mostly just about the fact that you misleadingly named two causes as the motivation for gun enthusiasm among the colonists, when there were in fact many that were just as strong and, in the case of the northern settlers and one of your motives, stronger.

OK, SC, responding to your attacks,

"You called Colonial Virginia a "Slave State" when every colony (not state) had slaves at the time."

Yes, this was anachronistic. You're right, I should have said colony. That said, the rest of my logic was sound. Virginia had far more slaves than the northern states, and her economy was far more dependent on them (although more for export than use, unlike most of the other deep-south states). An uprising was a real threat there in a way that it wasn't in a state, like Pennsylvania, whose whites outnumbered slaves more than 60:1.

"You stated that everybody was "in the army" in the 1780s. Barring the fact that a great deal of the population wasn't even elligible for the militia, there was no army from 1783 until mad anthony wayne in 1791."

Oh, I'm starting to see the problem -- you can't read!

I didn't say everyone was "in the army" (which is what you directly quoted me as saying). I said everyone WAS the army -- you're right that there was no army, and that's because the citizens themselves, armed as they were, were the force that would have defended against an attack. The militia, yes, would have been the first and main responders.

"You confused abolition with manumission which are very different processes that have very different results"

*shrug* The law Pennsylvania passed in 1780 abolished slavery gradually, which is exactly what I explicitly said. If you prefer a different term for that, that is fine, but it's not like I misled about what the law did. The slaves were not freed overnight, and I did not say they were. The institution was phased out, however.

"You claimed that colonists "defending against Indian attacks" has nothing to do with Indian oppression when they were settling on Indian land and often provoking those attacks with their actions."

I've already addressed this. Also, I did not say they had "nothing to do with" Indian oppression. I said they were distinct concepts. You're familiar with the distinction between these claims, yes?

"You have yet to cite one book or historical argument other than a gunfighteresque recitation of what you remember from fifth grade Social Studies class."

I don't have access to my books right now (I'm on vacation), and unlike you, I don't find it that useful to cite a long book without a page number or even chapter to support relevancy. You might enjoy "Eagle and Sword" by Richard Kohn, though, since you want a reference so badly.

More to the point, I've been dealing mostly in well-known facts which you haven't even contradicted, while you have been dealing in obscurantism, nit-picking, and anything else to try to hide the fact that your initial claim was either absurd (if meant literally) or grossly misleading (if meant to be only a partial characterization of the motivations of the early settlers for desiring guns). Even Georgia in the deep south was as concerned about a Spanish attack as about a slave uprising. (Though, yes, the Spanish did frequently attack via encouraging the Creek Indians to do so -- an example, incidentally, of Indian attacks that were not merely reprisals for settler violence. See Kohn, supra).

"You have yet to cite one book or historical argument other than a gunfighteresque recitation of what you remember from fifth grade Social Studies class."

Yes of course. My arguments have been replete with homely anecdotes of George Washington and Benjamin Franklin. Scarcely a fact or figure to be found.

"Every problem you have had with something I said comes from a poor understanding of events or context in the revolutionary era. Something I must apologize for not providing because I am used to talking to people who know what is going on."

Actually, every problem you have had with what _I_ say comes from assuming without consideration that I must be quoting old conservative fifth-grade materials and not actually interested in early American history. For example, you assumed so quickly that I would not realize that many Indian attacks were prompted by setters' actions against the Indians that you did not even pause to consider that my point remained valid even under this realization. Similarly, you were so eager to exploit what you saw as a misunderstanding of the ending of slavery in Pennsylvania that you completely missed the fact that my argument was successful in explaining that there was no numeric basis for fear of a slave uprising by the average or even plurality Pennsylvanian in the 1780s.

"You are clueless, stop pretending that you know a thing about American History and just express your views on the subject as what they are, ill informed opinions based on a Glenn Beck reading of the American History.

Next I am going to hear that the United states is a Christian country."

Actually, I can't stand Glenn Beck, David Barton, or any of their ilk, and I don't believe America was a Christian country, at least by most definitions which a Barton (say) might be eager to employ. Wonder what right-wing fifth-grade book I got that out of.

Again, I wish you'd start actually reading my arguments, instead of just using them to get off on your own superiority. I've spent quite a few years studying early American history, which is part of what enables me to recognize so quickly BS such as you were peddling. You've completely backpedaled now, so there's little left to argue about, other than your increasingly desperate assertions of my utter ignorance.

"unlimited gun rights in 1787 where the gun was a smoothbore musket"

Small correction there -- rifles were gaining popularity by that time. See Saratoga, Battle of, as well as aftermath.

Or so I think, but then, I know nothing.

"Thanks, Santa. I guess that the once-per-message insult is just the cost of talking to you. Anyway, here's the thing. You're right that there was this cycle of violence. The problem is it was not precisely directed. If you were a completely nonviolent, Indian-loving white settler, there is still a chance that you would become the target for the revenge attack from an Indian tribe that had, itself, been the victim of a violent attack from other whites."

A non-violent white settler on Native American land. So a non-violent invader. or even not on the land they participated in the larger scale invasion and the oppression of the Native Americans. There was no such thing as native white land in western Pennsylvania. And there are cultural reasons NAtive attacks were not precisely directed. And this of course has nothing to do with my statement that defending from Indian attacks and indian oppression are two sides of the same coin.

"I didn't say everyone was "in the army" (which is what you directly quoted me as saying). I said everyone WAS the army -- you're right that there was no army, and that's because the citizens themselves, armed as they were, were the force that would have defended against an attack. The militia, yes, would have been the first and main responders."

Yeah you should be the one talking. At least I only miss one word not read in entire arguments into someone elses writing

"*shrug* The law Pennsylvania passed in 1780 abolished slavery gradually, which is exactly what I explicitly said. If you prefer a different term for that, that is fine, but it's not like I misled about what the law did. The slaves were not freed overnight, and I did not say they were. The institution was phased out, however."

So did New York, New Jersey and I believe (not sure with new England) every state in the north. Not just Pennsylvania. And you were parading every other northern states manumission acts as abolition and claiming slavery was gone or near gone by the 1780s. You were full of shit. No amount of backtracking will correct that.

"
As to the second amendment -- it was proposed, one must assume, for much the same reasons that people cared about having guns in the first place. So I don't follow this reasoning, which looks a lot like you're just trying to disassociate yourself from your earlier, refuted claim."

I never made any claim about the second ammendment, you read that into my argument as you are wont to do.

"As for whether it was "a main reason." I've already said defense against the Indians was _A_ main reason. You continue to talk about slave uprisings in Pennsylvania and the contours of the legal end of slavery there. I've already quoted for you the actual numbers of slaves and whites, which you've ignored. Black uprisings in the north were far less of a preoccupation than white uprisings like Shay's rebellion."

Or Indian attacks which I mentioned. And I also noted the relative dearth of blacks in the area and disagreed with your charecterization of North as free of slaves as early as you claim. My main disagreement is with your charecterization of north east seabord militia as comparable to western and southern militias.

"Yes, this was anachronistic. You're right, I should have said colony. That said, the rest of my logic was sound. Virginia had far more slaves than the northern states, and her economy was far more dependent on them (although more for export than use, unlike most of the other deep-south states). An uprising was a real threat there in a way that it wasn't in a state, like Pennsylvania, whose whites outnumbered slaves more than 60:1."

No it is COMPLETELY anachronistic. There was no such thing as a "slave colony." The Idea of the slave state was the construction of the Missouri compromise. A charecteristic of the south was always slavery in greater numbers than the north, but you will find noone who would call any southern colony a slave colony? Why? Because every colony had slaves.

"I've already addressed this. Also, I did not say they had "nothing to do with" Indian oppression. I said they were distinct concepts. You're familiar with the distinction between these claims, yes?"

Yeah because I am psychic and I am supposed to know what you wrote when you wrote it after I posted. And there is no distinction. Whites as a whole persecuted the Natives. If some white settlers armed themselves to defend their stolen land from native raiding parties it doesn't make them any less inocent nor any less complicit.

"I don't have access to my books right now (I'm on vacation), and unlike you, I don't find it that useful to cite a long book without a page number or even chapter to support relevancy. You might enjoy "Eagle and Sword" by Richard Kohn, though, since you want a reference so badly."

Yes, so you give me shit for not citing anything, I give you books that discuss the issues, and not I get shit for not having them in front of me to give page numbers. Nice. Thanks for your one book reference

"Yes of course. My arguments have been replete with homely anecdotes of George Washington and Benjamin Franklin. Scarcely a fact or figure to be found."

Perhaps if you HAD mentioned any specific facts or people correctly (rather than fake "abolition dates") your musings would have been more palatable

"
Actually, every problem you have had with what _I_ say comes from assuming without consideration that I must be quoting old conservative fifth-grade materials and not actually interested in early American history. For example, you assumed so quickly that I would not realize that many Indian attacks were prompted by setters' actions against the Indians that you did not even pause to consider that my point remained valid even under this realization. "

They weren't valid. They were what you would call "nit-picking."

"Similarly, you were so eager to exploit what you saw as a misunderstanding of the ending of slavery in Pennsylvania that you completely missed the fact that my argument was successful in explaining that there was no numeric basis for fear of a slave uprising by the average or even plurality Pennsylvanian in the 1780s."

And you completely ignore that as of now I have stated that Pennsylvania was ground zero for indian war in the time period so your slavery arguments don't mean anything.

"Again, I wish you'd start actually reading my arguments, instead of just using them to get off on your own superiority. I've spent quite a few years studying early American history, which is part of what enables me to recognize so quickly BS such as you were peddling. You've completely backpedaled now, so there's little left to argue about, other than your increasingly desperate assertions of my utter ignorance. "

The "BS" I was peddling is not BS. I got a masters in Early American History of the Revolutionary Era. The fact that fear of slave uprising and indian attacks prompted a militia culture is an accepted fact in American History. It is not only seen on the mainland but in all slave cultures in the new world, mainland US just happened to have a more racist version of it. You demanded in the past that I respecty your degree yet you provide no respect for mine typical Semck.

"You've completely backpedaled now, so there's little left to argue about, other than your increasingly desperate assertions of my utter ignorance."

Or I never made the argument you said I did. Its a typical semck tactic. Where did I EVER bring up the second ammendment? Where did I ever concede that

"Basically American Colonists and later American citizens needed guns to oppress the Native Americans and Slaves that they were constantly scared shitless of. The only thing they were more afraid of was a federal government that would take their slaves away and enforce Indian treaties"

is incorrect? When did I ever say these were the ONLY reasons. In my second or third post of the exchange I talked about hunting and keeping the peace. Was the needs for guns do defend against natives and indian attacks they the main reasons? In certain areas in my estimation, absolutely, and in all areas still to a large extent. Southerners (and northerners) were scared to death of slave insurections. If you read a newspaper from Philadelphia after the Haitian Revolution you would think there already was a insurection occuring.In the south they were so scared that they constantly skimped on providing troops to every war from the French and Indian to the Civil War until completely necessary. Everyone was scared of Indian attacks, especially in the West and places like Pensylvania. And you want to bring up Shays rebellion? That is more oppression, this time of the poor whites by the landed classes and crediters.

I don't feel I backpeddled at all. I think you put words and arguments into my mouth from the start, or more likely, felt that my initial statements had no merit and smarted once you actually did some wikipedia reading and decided to build sufficient strawmen to continue the argument. Either way, I didn't argue the things you said I did.

"Small correction there -- rifles were gaining popularity by that time. See Saratoga, Battle of, as well as aftermath.

Or so I think, but then, I know nothing. "

See this is the BULLSHIT I am talking about.

Yes Rifles existed...

No Rifles were not the main arsenal of the 18th century fighter...

Smoothbore muskets formed the backbone of the american arsenal throughout and after the period discussed. The main guns used at the time of the revolution and the 1780s were the English brown Bess and the French Charleville musket, both of which were a SMOOTHBORE MUSKETS. Later, smoothbores formed the backbone of US forces through the mexican war.

Concurrently there were rifles, especially the kentucky long rifle. But these in no way replaced muskets, and until mid nineteenth century were subordinated to the musket in America as well as Europe.

Now if you have statistics saying that militia were armed with rifles rather than muskets when the US Army and Navy were not, feel free to post them, but otherwise, again, your objection is just more generalized bull shit that isn't real history.

so why did you correct it when it wasn't wrong?

"so why did you correct it when it wasn't wrong?"

It was wrong. The gun rights in 1787 applied to even the highest-tech guns of the time, i.e. rifles. You said it applied to smooth-bore muskets. It was wrong.

But the essential point was just that if you want to nit-pick anachronism, two can play that game.

You've been consistently doing so on the "slave state" issue and the north, while ignoring the fundamental fact that the uneasiness about slave rebellion was based on numbers, and the north just lacked the numbers for the threat to be severe.

That's all.

As for the rest -- I do think and maintain that your initial post implied that those were the only or only main reasons the colonial Americans wanted guns. It's now clear we both agree that's false. Good enough.

"It was wrong. The gun rights in 1787 applied to even the highest-tech guns of the time, i.e. rifles. You said it applied to smooth-bore muskets. It was wrong."

What???? Come again??? And considering both rifles and muskets were developed side by side until the 1840s I think it is hardly correct to say the rifle was "the mist high tech gun. But that is completely beside the point. The point is how the hell does what you just said make any concievable sense.

"But the essential point was just that if you want to nit-pick anachronism, two can play that game."

How is naming the most popular weapon at the time an anacronism? Are you serious? Are you really so scared to admit that you are wrong?

"You've been consistently doing so on the "slave state" issue and the north, while ignoring the fundamental fact that the uneasiness about slave rebellion was based on numbers, and the north just lacked the numbers for the threat to be severe."

Or the north had problems with Native Americans as I said all along

That is all

"As for the rest -- I do think and maintain that your initial post implied that those were the only or only main reasons the colonial Americans wanted guns. It's now clear we both agree that's false. Good enough. "

It implied nothing of the sort. Just like my post about muskets did not imply they were the most high tech weapon at the time. See what you do?

This is getting stupid, so I'll let you have the last word if you want it. But one last time: is the musket, or is it not, higher-tech? Early in this post you imply it is. At the end, you imply it is not. I'm confused. Certainly I would say a rifle is a higher-tech gun, and always was. But you're of course right that both continued to be popular for quite awhile.

In any case, sorry if it seemed that I was saying you had implied the musket was the highest tech. I did not mean that at all. I just meant that you were wrong to imply that the 2nd amendment applied only to muskets. It was I who brought higher and lower tech into the discussion. My essential point is, it applied to rifles too, just as it does today. I'm not sure what is confusing you so much about that claim.

"How is naming the most popular weapon at the time an anacronism?"

Because, again, you implied that it applied only to that weapon, when in fact a more modern weapon was already available, and moderately popular.

"Or the north had problems with Native Americans as I said all along"

It did, yes, as I also said all along. I'll also continue to say that you're oversimplifying a complex issue when you act as though everybody who wished to defend himself against Indians was also engaged in oppressing Indians. As I said the first time I addressed this issue, both were extremely widespread -- in western Pennsylvania, yes, and even in eastern Pennsylvania.

"It implied nothing of the sort."

Well, if it didn't, then we had nothing to disagree about, as it was the exclusiveness that I objected to. I still think it was there. Maybe it wasn't, or was unintended. Here's what you said.

"Basically American Colonists and later American citizens needed guns to oppress the Native Americans and Slaves that they were constantly scared shitless of. The only thing they were more afraid of was a federal government that would take their slaves away and enforce Indian treaties. "

If I'm totally wrong and there's no implication of exclusivity there, but a complete openness to the fact that they also needed guns for a lot of legitimate reasons, then I do apologize.

@Semck - It is implied in the tone. Don't feel bad. I stayed out of it because he is a gungrabber who was looking for an excuse to argue and implying the only reason the 2nd amendment includes the right to bear arms was so America could oppress Indians and maintain slaves was his way ofbstarting it.

The history of gun control, whilst being interesting, is a bit of a red herring. Policy should be made by people of our time for the benefit of people of our time. Note the reasons why other policy makers made their decisions by all means, but don't be restrained by them.

Agreed Maniac. But it must be done within the confines ofbthe government's frameowrk allows. So, with the Constitution having the Right to bear amrs so enshrined, the people must amend the Constitution, not just ignore it, or the separation of powers and the three branches providing that balance no longer exists.

If enough people can convince their reps to push for an amendment and the reps can get it through and then the states finally ratify it, I can.live with the change. But there isn't enough support to get that done and so I support the right of other law abiding citizens to own guns.

That said, as I pointed out before, I believe certain restrictions do not infringe upon that right any more than hate speech laws infringe upon freedom of speech.

Can I just clarify something? Like many Brits I have used guns for leisure (and indeed work) numerous times, but have never owned one. Is that sort of thing common in the US or do you mostly own the guns you use?

You own what you use here. Police officers are only issued guns if an automatic nature lile SWAT rifles. Soldiers likewise. Personal sidearms are usually issued but then owned by the issuee by payroll deductions unless the issuee already has an appropriate weappn from another job. Hunting weapons are always owned and never loaned. Hell, when I worked private security in the late 80s in college, they tool the cost of my sidearm out of my check then bought it back when I left because I had no desire to keep it.