OT: Ok, there really is nothing to see here. Except me making a fool of myself.

geoschmo · #1 April 20th, 2004, 07:10 PM

ROFL, I didn't realize he thought it was serious.

Guess you caught the thread before he changed the title.

Wardad · #2 April 20th, 2004, 11:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by primitive:
Good one Narf.

Fyron:
"The National guard" of the story would be English troops. After all they was the legal rulers at the time, the republic not beeing proclaimed yet

Naaaaa!
"The National Guard" would be the local militas, the "Blue Coats". They would supplement the Kings "Red Coats" and provide local defense against the French or Indians.

The republic was not yet proclaimed. BUT, it was a government in operation. Almost independant of England, but in operating Englands name. We had been left to fend for ourselfs and develop on our own.
When we were ripe for the pickings, England got gready, too gready. The crazy King denied us the rights, status, and representation of English citizens.

[ April 20, 2004, 22:15: Message edited by: Wardad ]

Wardad · #3 April 20th, 2004, 11:05 PM

oops, where is that delete key

[ April 20, 2004, 22:16: Message edited by: Wardad ]

Puke · #4 April 22nd, 2004, 06:14 PM

real? its highly euphamistic. its not a modernization of events, its a complete re-immagining of events for specific political goals. the analogies that are being made are completely irresponsible.

Brigham Young and Aaron Burr both wanted to carve out their own piece of empire, but no one points to them as shining examples of why the populous should be armed.

even pretending that events leading to the revolution are analogous to modern assault weapons issues and michigan millitia type organizations is absurd. I dont mind the debate, but I think people should qualify their arguements a bit better.

And its not that im for disarming the public, but i would prefer if that armed public was educated and responsible. unfortuneately, they are not.

sleeping through history, indeed...

[ April 22, 2004, 19:10: Message edited by: Puke ]

mottlee · #5 April 23rd, 2004, 12:18 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
There were no such things as "assault weapons" (they had rifles and pistols, no automated fire arms whatsoever) and the "national guard" (militias, yes, but not even an army until after 1776 and the US declaration of independence) back in 1775...

This is true...what was the first "Assault weapon?"?????? a ROCK! do we pick them all up and drop them off at the local PD ?

Fyron · #6 April 23rd, 2004, 12:20 AM

Well, "assault weapon" generally refers to a gun capable of putting more than a few rounds of lead into a target in a few seconds...

Quote:

Originally posted by geoschmo:
ROFL, I didn't realize he thought it was serious. Guess you caught the thread before he changed the title.

I believe he changed the title as a direct result of my post.

[ April 22, 2004, 23:22: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

primitive · #7 April 23rd, 2004, 01:27 AM

LOL, I pushed a button there Puke

This fun little story has been wandering the net for years, and if you google for it you will find dozens of copies of it, mostly on pro gun sites showing the evils of gun control.

But there are more to this story. If you don't see any relevance to the US domestic scene of today, try to exhange Thomas Gage with Paul Bremner and Lexington with Fallujah.
Eerie isn't it !