[above image] : Abortion rights advocates protested the Supreme Court’s attack on women’s rights when it ended Roe. The Court is expected to intensify its attacks on democracy in the new term. Gemunu Amarasinghe/AP

  • betwixthewires@lemmy.basedcount.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    I never said that, but you ascribing scenarios that a long dead man had in mind as opposed to taking their words at face value really tells me that you really, really know what you’re talking about, a lot.

    • VikingHippie@lemmy.wtf
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Now you’re just projecting. At face value, he doesn’t mention personal ownership of guns, nor does he even imply anything like that.

      The reason I mentioned the French revolution is that other than the US independence war itself, it’s THE rebellion against the government of Franklin’s time and thus more likely than not he’s inspired by it and/or the aforementioned war fought by well-regulated militias, NOT individuals who owned guns for their own personal use.

      • betwixthewires@lemmy.basedcount.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Projecting what?

        We are discussing a Thomas Jefferson quote, not Ben Franklin, and in the quote we are discussing he literally says “let them take arms.”

        • VikingHippie@lemmy.wtf
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          You’re projecting the fact that you’re unreasonably assuming he meant personal ownership and use onto me by claiming that I’m unreasonably assuming that he didn’t.

          The fact of the matter is that “let them take arms” in no way means “let them personally own guns for their own personal use”.

          In fact, given the historical context, it’s much more likely that he meant as militias fighting a guerilla war or using them in a coordinated revolutionary effort, neither of which necessitates personal ownership of guns.

          • betwixthewires@lemmy.basedcount.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            I never unreasonably assumed he meant personal ownership. I just thought you know, since you can read a dead mans mind and know he was talking about the French revolution or something you must really, really know what you’re talking about.

            “Let them take arms” can be reasonably construed to mean “let them own guns”. Saying “in no way” is categorically incorrect. Saying it might not mean that is not unreasonable, but saying it definitely doesn’t is absolutely unreasonable, which is what you’re saying.

            What he meant, what was going on in his head, we can’t know. Well, except for you apparently, because you really know what you’re talking about. But the rest of us, all we can do is take his words at face value.

            • VikingHippie@lemmy.wtf
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              This is not going anywhere except nitpicking, clarification and more nitpicking etc, so let’s just stop now rather than continue to waste each other’s time.