Was the Revolutionary War a mistake? Britain was not "oppressive" by 18th century standards...

>They were oppressive as fuck.

I see you learned about history from Mel Gibson's The Patriot

t. rotmouth

Or college. A little of both.

Oh and btw newfag, you punctuated green text, and then didn't your non green text. That's not how that works.

...

The US and Anglo-Sphere would have been crippled by a lack of aggressive American expansion. Louis the 18th, still King of France wouldn't have sold Louisiana, no Florida annexation, and certainly no Texas to California. Holy Roman Empire would have stretched on a bit longer. The impact of the American Revolution on Europe is really hard to understate.

Indeed. Our Revolution sparked their own.

>By God chap! The Americans did it, let's follow their lead and pretend to be their better while obviously inferior!
>Cheerio mate

Being a superpower is not a good thing for the people back home. It means higher taxes to fight useless wars.
I prefer whiskey, but thanks.
Exactly what did they do that was so "oppressive" by 18th century standards? Nothing that I can think of.
>Colonists were not allowed to own weapons
This is simply false.
>If they wanted to grow crops or build structures, they were forced to buy everything they needed from the crown's designated importer
This was common in mercantilist societies and is really not that different from modern protectionism.
>obliged to provide quarters to the British soldiers
How is that any different than paying taxes to build military bases?
>and they did not have a right to privacy
Also false. The right to privacy, like all civil rights in America, existed in England centuries before the Revolutionary War.
>the British taxed the FUCK out of the colonists
The taxes were no higher than those imposed by the American government.
>did not grant them representatives in government
Plenty of people in England itself at this time couldn't vote.
That was just a propaganda document.
>fight war for "freedom"
>take it away from indigenous people
All the land east of the Mississippi River was British territory after the French and Indian War.

Welp, that settles it, this is a bait thread. So, fuck this noise. What's your favorite type of music to listen to when you're doing /k/ shit? Innawoods, cleaning guns, range, browsing /k/, etc.

...

>Exactly what did they do that was so "oppressive" by 18th century standards? Nothing that I can think of.

I have neither the time or inclination to educate you fully. One of the things British would do was take boys 11-13 forcefully from their families and make them serve as shiphands. They wanted young Americans to be slaves to the crown, and try to reeducate them to serve Britain.

Most everything this guy said as well. Over taxed, lack of rights, no representation. And quite frankly, you were a bunch of bitches and we knew we could defeat you, so we did just that.

>I have neither the time or inclination to educate you fully. One of the things British would do was take boys 11-13 forcefully from their families and make them serve as shiphands. They wanted young Americans to be slaves to the crown, and try to reeducate them to serve Britain.
I don't believe that. Do you have any source?

>Most everything this guy said as well
Did you not read my response?

>Over taxed
America has taxes too, you know. Always has.

>lack of rights
Simply false.

>no representation
Not that bad by 18th century standards. Most people in England couldn't even vote until well into the 19th century.

>And quite frankly, you were a bunch of bitches and we knew we could defeat you, so we did just that.
I'm American.

user, it gave us the 2nd Amendment. Imagine a world without a single nation that gives its citizens the right to bear arms.

Hell, even our freedom of speech is unique among most nations, and we would never have that if we didn't rebel either. Instead we'd have faggoty "hate speech" laws like those cucks in Canada.

>user, it gave us the 2nd Amendment
Wrong. The English Bill of Rights already had the right to bear arms for a century before the 2nd Amendment.

>Hell, even our freedom of speech is unique among most nations, and we would never have that if we didn't rebel either. Instead we'd have faggoty "hate speech" laws like those cucks in Canada.

washingtontimes.com/news/2017/mar/23/tristan-rettke-tenn-student-who-wore-gorilla-mask-/

A fucking education man. No I don't walk around with factoids. Believe it or not it happened. Your whole "by 18th" century standards talk. Write me a 10 page essay on what that is, fuckboi.

>Over taxed
US does tax. Far less than Europe. That's why you idiots think you have "free" healthcare. If they taxed us as high as you itd all be "free", right govna?

>Lack of rights
Yeah you didn't have shit until you saw what we did. Can you read and comprehend things?

>By English standard
Which were shit. See above

>American
Unfortunate. Oh well. Youre probably some dumb Marxist college teen

>The English Bill of Rights already had the right to bear arms for a century before the 2nd Amendment
And they just ignore it so that doesn't mean anything.

When the US levied taxes, the taxed parties had legal representation. That was literally the root of the England problem

>Your whole "by 18th" century standards talk. Write me a 10 page essay on what that is, fuckboi.
18th century standards means compared to other countries at the time.

>US does tax. Far less than Europe. That's why you idiots think you have "free" healthcare. If they taxed us as high as you itd all be "free", right govna?
The taxes in the 1760s were not that bad, especially considering that the government in London had just helped the colonists fight a war against the French and Indians. The American taxes were high enough that Americans rebelled against the first president.

>Yeah you didn't have shit until you saw what we did. Can you read and comprehend things?
Wrong again. American civil rights all came from England. They are centuries older than America.

>Which were shit. See above
Neither America nor England had anything close to universal suffrage at the time, so the muh representation argument is invalid.

>Unfortunate. Oh well. Youre probably some dumb Marxist college teen
Not at all. I'm very conservative by any standard.

They do today, but until the 20th century, England was very pro-gun.

Not really. Most Americans couldn't even vote at the time.

>They do today, but until the 20th century, England was very pro-gun.
Okay, so what? We live in the present, and so we have the hindsight to know that they would throw away their gun rights. If we didn't break away, we would be dragged down with them.

>If we didn't break away, we would be dragged down with them.
Not necessarily. Canada is much more pro gun than England. America's gun culture probably has more to do with our frontier history than it does to do with the Revolution.

We wouldn't have a frontier history if we didn't break away, we never would have gotten the Louisiana purchase and would have been forced to stay near the east coast.

>18th century standards means compared to other countries at the time.

That's called cultural relativism.

>Wrong again. American civil rights all came from England. They are centuries older than America.

We borrowed the English legal system. What else were we to do? Don't reinvent the wheel. Should we have invented a different language and not speak English? Nothing England had worked or was reinforced

>Neither America nor England had anything close to universal suffrage at the time, so the muh representation argument is invalid.

Tell me about how our founding Fathers were welcome as equals into the House of Lord's to vote on behalf of the colonies.

>Rebelled against Washington
No, they protested. Which was their right, something English couldn't do. No 1st amendment

>I'm a conservative American
No, Sir, you are not. You lick English asshole like it's cotton candy. You are entirely a different animal.

>That's called cultural relativism.
No, it's called good history. You have to judge political decisions based on the context in which they were made.

>Tell me about how our founding Fathers were welcome as equals into the House of Lord's to vote on behalf of the colonies.
I'm not sure what your point is. Why are you making such a big deal about voting when so few people could vote anyway?

>No, they protested. Which was their right, something English couldn't do. No 1st amendment

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fries's_Rebellion

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shays'_Rebellion

>No, Sir, you are not. You lick English asshole like it's cotton candy. You are entirely a different animal.
You called by a college Marxist. That is not even close to being accurate. Most college Marxists would have me hanged if they could.

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fries's_Rebellion
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shays'_Rebellion
Those aren't protests dumbass, those are armed rebellions.

That's my point. Washington's taxes were just as bad as the British taxes, so the Revolution accomplished nothing. Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.

>No, it's called good history.
No it's literally called cultural relativism, philosophy 101

>It was a rebellion
No, again, it wasn't. You can call an unhappy teenager a rebel. In historic meaning it was nothing.

>Marxist would hang me
I don't think so. You'd probably have friends if you embraced your identity.

Other than not having to listen to an inept Parliament and king (who was already losing power anyhow), not much. Though having control of power at your home is much better than from some parlifags and King Looney an ocean away.

Mostly it was about autonomy and parliment's increasing intrusion of colonial affairs, coupled with stupid high taxes and inept leadership.

>No it's literally called cultural relativism, philosophy 101
Wrong again. The purpose of a revolution is to change the government. If the new government is just as "oppressive" as the old one, then the revolution is a failure in that sense. Judging historical governments by modern standards is pointless. It tells you nothing about what actions in the past meant.

Cultural relativism, on the other had, is thinly veiled ethical nihilism, since it effectively means that nothing is right or wrong.

>No, again, it wasn't. You can call an unhappy teenager a rebel. In historic meaning it was nothing.
Americans took up arms against the federal government over taxes. The president then sent in soldiers to enforce taxes. Sounds like a rebellion to me.

>Though having control of power at your home is much better than from some parlifags and King Looney an ocean away.
Not really. Taxes are taxes whether you pay them to D.C. or to London.

>stupid high taxes
The taxes weren't that high. Most of them could be avoided by simply not buying booze, but most Americans at the time were alcoholics.

>inept leadership
Inept how?

>intrusion of colonial affairs
Simply false.

>Neither America nor England had anything close to universal suffrage at the time, so the muh representation argument is invalid.

Different user. US colonists with land over 40 shillings would have been eligible to vote back in England. Those wealthy landowners were being denied their vote.

Dumbfuck, their right to bear arms included the phrase "as allowed by law.". What happens when there is a law that doesn't allow it? Same as Mexico who have the same "right" enshrined with the same limitations.

You need to cite sources because you are the one making the initial assertions. We have a primary source in the Declaration of Independence where scholars and leaders of the period created a litany of complaints for the English and all other nations to read.

Finally, at the very least, the Revolution gave us SHALL

>Not really. Taxes are taxes whether you pay them to D.C. or to London.

One seat of government is going to respond with my tax dollars much more quickly than the one across an ocean.

>intrusion of colonial affairs
> Simply false.
Salutory neglect was a thing, user. We didn't like it very much when it was revoked.

>Let's fight a war to give wealthy plantation owners more power.
So much for all the propaganda about muh liberty.

>Dumbfuck, their right to bear arms included the phrase "as allowed by law.". What happens when there is a law that doesn't allow it? Same as Mexico who have the same "right" enshrined with the same limitations.
America also has legal restrictions on the right to bear arms. The right to bear arms has, unfortunately, never been absolute.

>You need to cite sources because you are the one making the initial assertions.
I will be happy too. Just tell me what factual claims you would like sources for.
>We have a primary source in the Declaration of Independence where scholars and leaders of the period created a litany of complaints for the English and all other nations to read.
The Revolution was totally justified. This document from our propaganda even says so!

>One seat of government is going to respond with my tax dollars much more quickly than the one across an ocean.
That doesn't sound like "liberty" to me.

>Salutory neglect was a thing, user. We didn't like it very much when it was revoked.
Specifically what laws should parliament not have passed? And don't say muh taxes because Britain had just fought an expensive war for the benefit of the colonies.

>Judging historical governments by modern standards is pointless. It tells you nothing about what actions in the past meant.

Literally the definition of cultural relativism. I can't argue you, you proved me correct.

>Sounds like a rebellion to me

Of no significance what-so-ever. Like Ruby Ridge, or those ranchers we sent dildos too because they wanted their cattle to graze federal land for free.
>OH MY GOD THE REBELS!!!!!!!!!!
You mean the thing that didn't matter to 99.99% of anyone?
>YES! THE REBELLION!!!!!

*happy to

>Literally the definition of cultural relativism. I can't argue you, you proved me correct.
It's literally not, but I'm not here to argue semantics, as it is a distraction from the main point, which I will reiterate in the hope that you will pay attention to it.

>The purpose of a revolution is to change the government. If the new government is just as "oppressive" as the old one, then the revolution is a failure in that sense.

>Of no significance what-so-ever.
Significant enough for the president and the army to get involved.

>/k/ needs flags, the thread

>So much for all the propaganda about muh liberty.
It was the 1700s. Mill and Jefferson might have been pushing that, but people were sure it was going to blow up, and the French Revolution probably didn't help.

TL:DR: Nobody's perfect, but we got there. Eventually. Like, 100 years later.

> Specifically what laws should parliament not have passed?
The smart ass answer is whichever one's would have prevented her colonies from rebelling. If you twist my arm, probably the Navigation Acts. We talked a mad game about the rights of man, etc., but locking us out of foreign markets and imports cut too deeply into the rich rabble rouser's pockets.

Stay mad, Britcuck

Your semantics stuck your own foot in your mouth. But let's go on:

What is the Bill of Rights. What is a democratic Republic? You were electing king George or king Henry whatever fucking stupid king you had. Or wait, nope.

>President got involved
Means shit. Obama and Trump tweeted about the dumbest shit on Earth. Doesn't make it significant.

There's always idiots. You can't have a functioning government without taxes to fund it. All George did was enforce taxes, which were less than England. He was the IRS before we had one.

Bruv, 13,000 nasty girls showing up in your hometown with M4s or whatever they get issued these days is going to make history textbooks.

>or even make their own metal tools
Is this real?

>America also has legal restrictions on the right to bear arms.
The difference lies not in level of regulation, but in the way the bearing of arms is classified in an ethical context: as a right granted to every law-abiding citizen, or as a privilege granted to those who are moneyed and "fit" in the eyes of government.

>America also has legal restrictions on the right to bear arms. The right to bear arms has, unfortunately, never been absolute.
The right is not granted, it is recognized. Any law that infringes/inhibits/makes inconveniences in practice is not only unconstitutional but goes against an individual's natural rights endowed by their Creator. I think you agree, but I'm not going to accept the conclusion that just because governments infringe it in practice means the right doesn't actually exist.

>The Revolution was totally justified. This document from our propaganda even says so!
It's still a source, more than you've provided for any of your points

Look, there were solid reasons for revolt. Just off the top of my head, the Battles of Lexington and Concord were a direct response to an attempt by the British to secure colonist armories and powder magazines. In regards to taxes, they were much higher than in other parts of the world due to the English attempting to recoup costs from the Seven Years War, to include the French and Indian War in the Colonies. Because the taxes were taken without the Colonies having representatives (not even impotent representation, they weren't allowed any), we threw a fit and it escalated every time the English restricted rights. Also no, quartering soldiers in your home is different than paying taxes (that are appropriated by your elected representatives) to house them on a base.

I'm American.
>What is the Bill of Rights
Something we already had before the Revolution and something which the Founders themselves often disregarded when it was convenient.

>What is a democratic Republic
A system of government in which tyrants are elected (often in rigged elections) rather than born into power.

>Means shit. Obama and Trump tweeted about the dumbest shit on Earth. Doesn't make it significant.
Posting on Twitter is not equivalent to leading an army.

>You can't have a functioning government without taxes to fund it.
>All George did was enforce taxes
>He was the IRS before we had one.
That applies as well to King George as it does to President George.

No, we had plenty of blacksmiths in colonial America.

The right to bear arms was nearly universal in England. America, on the other hand, denied that right, and all others, to slaves, who were about a fifth of the population.

>The right is not granted, it is recognized. Any law that infringes/inhibits/makes inconveniences in practice is not only unconstitutional but goes against an individual's natural rights endowed by their Creator. I think you agree, but I'm not going to accept the conclusion that just because governments infringe it in practice means the right doesn't actually exist.
You know what I mean. England's gun policy back then was every bit as pro-gun as America's. Don't act like the Revolutionary War had anything to do with the right to bear arms.

>It's still a source, more than you've provided for any of your points
Which of my factual claims would you like a source for? I'll be happy to find you one.

I thought this was a bait thread but you're seriously wasting your time continuing to post.

>>obliged to provide quarters to the British soldiers
>How is that any different than paying taxes to build military bases?
If you seriously can't understand how soldiers of your oppressor forcing you to provide them shelter is different from paying taxes for your own state's military, there is no reason for anyone in this thread to engage with you any further.

Go bin that knife and lick your queens boots, superfag.

>Something we already had before the Revolution
Except no, not at all. not even in imagination land. Wtf you're stupid.

No way, shape or form. You fucking mongoloid. That's why we have the 3rd Amendment huh?

Go breathe out your mouth somewhere else I'm done with you.

Pic related

We kind of screwed the pooch with religion though.

Religion is dead now though. We've always had separation of Church and State even back when people used to believed in "God".

The English Bill of Rights applied to all citizens regardless if they lived in colonies or not.

>It means higher taxes to fight useless wars.
But yet the US tax payer is still taxed far less than most Western countries, especially those with "progressive socialist" policies.

>A system of government in which tyrants are elected (often in rigged elections) rather than born into power.

So as long as I have the will, I can be one of the ruling class. Still sounds better than patrilineal primogeniture

One thing I never got cleared up, Protestants could bear arms under the 1689 Bill of Rights. But did that implicitly exclude Catholics?

It could have been a mistake, but you could also say it was a mistake for Britain to not let the colonies govern themselves. The empire could have established a government that was friendly to the brits and was against terrorists like Thomas Jefferson and John Adams.

The founding fathers were terrorists. Their is little difference between what al qaeda does and the continental army did during the revolutionary war. Like you said Britain wasn't oppressive, the new world had new people who didn't have to be white anglo-saxon to be accepted.

>Battles of Lexington and Concord were a direct response to an attempt by the British to secure colonist armories and powder magazines
Which was itself a direct response to Massachusetts being in open rebellion.
>taxes, they were much higher than in other parts of the world due to the English attempting to recoup costs from the Seven Years War, to include the French and Indian War in the Colonies
Yes, the government had to raise taxes to fund a war fought for the benefit of the colonies.
>taxes were taken without the Colonies having representatives (not even impotent representation, they weren't allowed any),
As I said before, representation means very little in an era when few people can vote anyway. Taxes are taxes whether you have representation or not. The taxes of the time were largely taxes on molasses, which was used for making rum. Americans could have avoided those taxes by not buying rum.

>Also no, quartering soldiers in your home is different than paying taxes (that are appropriated by your elected representatives) to house them on a base.
It really isn't. Either way, you're being forced to support an army economically. It's pretty common for armies to requisition needed resources. The colonists didn't want to pay taxes, so how else was the army supposed to be housed?

>paying taxes for your own state's military
Britain was our own state at the time. Do you think Britain was a foreign power or something?

>Go bin that knife and lick your queens boots, superfag.
I'm American.

Only because those other countries have muh healthcare and muh free college, neither of which were issues in the 18th century.

>So as long as I have the will, I can be one of the ruling class. Still sounds better than patrilineal primogeniture
That depends on how much upward mobility there is in society.

>Founding fathers were terrorist

I heard numales were being taught this.

The Church of England was, and is, a Protestant church, and most of their enemies, the French, some Germans, and the Irish, were Catholic.
>it was a mistake for Britain to not let the colonies govern themselves
The colonies had a lot of autonomy at the time.

>>Also no, quartering soldiers in your home is different than paying taxes (that are appropriated by your elected representatives) to house them on a base.
>It really isn't.

No one here is going to agree with you on this one, user. We enjoy not having to wait to take a shit because a lobsterback is in there heating up the porcelain.

It still is hereditary, just in a slightly different way. We've gone from inherited noble titles to inherited wealth and influence, the only functional difference is the exact wording.

>The Church of England was, and is, a Protestant church, and most of their enemies, the French, some Germans, and the Irish, were Catholic.

I'm aware, but did Catholics have a right to bear arms under James II, or did no one have the right and the act only extend this right to Protestants?

>he only functional difference is the exact wording
Do I really have to look up and link our Patrician class members (i.e. US senators) who did not come from families of wealth to argue this point? It's a PITA.

They had outhouses back then. Either way, it's not worth fighting a war over.
>I'm aware, but did Catholics have a right to bear arms under James II, or did no one have the right and the act only extend this right to Protestants?
That I don't know. There were no background checks back then, so I imagine it was pretty easy for anyone to buy a musket.

>Either way, it's not worth fighting a war over.
You greatly underestimate how much I need my bathroom time. It's the only alone time I have left.

Build another outhouse.

>Britain was our own state at the time. Do you think Britain was a foreign power or something?
This is where you need to use your brain and read up on the origins of democracy. Study the greek classics, brainlet. It should have been a surprise to no one that our oppressed colonies (that is, colonists who did not share the same level of enfranchisement as their English cousins) would develop their own political identity and strike out for fair treatment. When they met resistance, their will to independence was resolved. "Join, or die." You are massively ignorant and need to read books instead of shitpost on /k/.

>I'm American.
You're retarded, and probably an annoying contrarian teenager in real life as well. I'd say love it or leave it but we both know you're never leaving your mom's basement.

>You know what I mean. England's gun policy back then was every bit as pro-gun as America's. Don't act like the Revolutionary War had anything to do with the right to bear arms.
Yeah, there is no denying that culturally the Colonies were close to the British because they were British colonies. However, the difference was from the Frontier mindset (which I believe you mentioned earlier) that put value in the strength of the individual to survive and thrive. As a result, while their weapon policies we're similar back then, we established "shall not be infringed" and other guarantees of Individual rights while the British didn't. The proof is in our cultural differences today.

>Which of my factual claims would you like a source for? I'll be happy to find you one.
Nigger at this point you have made a ton. Let's see if I can grab a few.

>Being a superpower is not a good thing for the people back home. Muh higher taxes.
So we have some of the lowest income tax rates in the world, in particular comparison to socialist nation's like Switzerland (40% to our 13%). Where are you getting your data from?
google.com/amp/s/www.fool.com/amp/retirement/2017/03/04/whats-the-average-americans-tax-rate.aspx and then tradingeconomics.com/switzerland/personal-income-tax-rate

>Colonists were not allowed to own weapons
>This is simply false.
Aforementioned Lexington and Concord confiscation attempt. Your counter?

>Americans had right to privacy
Star Chambers so no due process, warrantless searches for contraband during the Intolerable Acts (ex Stamp Act) and other shit point to massive violation of rights

What was the size of a standard British platoon? How many outhouses must a Good fearing Englishman build, oh Lord?

>always has
Do you know nothing of our post independence years? Look up what happened under the articles of confederation, dipshit.

>No, we had plenty of blacksmiths in colonial America.
Thats what I thought,those dudes weren't sawing down trees with pine cones.

Maybe, maybe not. Did the colonists overreact to things? Maybe.

It can be argued that the creation of the US lead to this land being exploited to its full potential though. More than the Brits might have done with it.

And Sergeant Pepper just ate the last Cinnamon and Brown Sugar poptart. By God, this shall not stand.

Why?

Not who you were responding to, but your post has changed my opinion and I wish to now sully their royal bloodline with my freedom-powered dick. God save the Queen (from my dick).

I still believe in God

Considering how inbred royals are she was doable when young. Kinda plain Jane.

It's sad the royal family is so inbred they had prince whatever marry princess Diana for genetic diversity so their children wouldn't be hideous monsters. That's all fine and we'll, they didn't need to murder her though.

>>they didn't need to murder her though

This is now a thread where, thanks to the Revolution, Americans post weapons we can personally own that England can't.

Pic related.

I'd like to spread her legs and go down under on her

Not an argument.
>The proof is in our cultural differences today.
That doesn't prove anything. Britain has terrible gun laws today because British society changed in the 20th century. America didn't have such a change except in major cities.

>So we have some of the lowest income tax rates in the world, in particular comparison to socialist nation's like Switzerland (40% to our 13%). Where are you getting your data from?
That's only counting one source of government revenue. If you add up all the federal, state, and local taxes, they are much higher than you think. Also, the fact that America has slightly lower taxes than Europe has nothing to do with being a "superpower." It's just because European countries have muh free healthcare and muh free college.

>Aforementioned Lexington and Concord confiscation attempt. Your counter?
Those were munitions magazines held by the colonial government, not privately owned weapons. Massachusetts was already in open rebellion by that time, so it's understandable that the Brits would try to disband the Mass state militia. It wasn't the kind of gun confiscation that Feinstein and Schumer would try.

>Star Chambers so no due process, warrantless searches for contraband during the Intolerable Acts (ex Stamp Act) and other shit point to massive violation of rights

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semayne's_case

>Do you know nothing of our post independence years? Look up what happened under the articles of confederation, dipshit.
Rebellions against taxes happened.

The revisionist horseshit in every other comment in this shit thread makes me tired just from reading it.

>Not really. Taxes are taxes whether you pay them to D.C. or to London.
Referring to more direct control. Not everything is taxes.

>stupid high taxes
>Molasses Act
>Stamp Act
>Sugar Act
>Townshed Act

>Most of them could be avoided by simply not buying booze, but most Americans at the time were alcoholics.
>I have no understanding of microbiology, historical understanding of cleanliness, and water borne disease the post.

>Inept how?
Increasing the animosity between American colonies and British, poor budget management, resolving internal affairs with an occupation force, no direct way for the colonies to represent themselves in Parliment, ignoring of colonial demands, etc.

>intrusion of colonial affairs
>false
>what is:
>Navigation Act
>Declaratory Act
>Currency Act
>Quartering Act
>Tea Act
>Treason Act
>Coercive Acts

Seriously who are you trying to fool?

>If they wanted to grow crops or build structures, they were forced to buy everything they needed from the crown's designated importer.
Was this really that bad?

>Colonists were also obliged to provide quarters to the British soldiers who enforced the oppressive laws, and they did not have a right to privacy.
You could also say that the soldiers were providing order and security for the colonists.

>If the local authority said hey we are going to look through all your papers and shit, it would be illegal to stop them. No warrant needed.
What do you have to hide? No matter how corrupt, why are you trying to make more trouble for yourself?

>In addition to all this, the British taxed the FUCK out of the colonists
Just how many people were living in sub standard living conditions in the 1770's?

>and did not grant them representatives in government.
I'll give you that

I bet you're one of those open carry faggots that just dare law enforcement to try and challenge your right and you just can't wait for the day when the 'jews' send their police 'foot soldiers' to enforce their will by snatching up your god given rightful armory out of your hands and the hands of many other brave patriots who have not been indoctrinated. But little do they know you will tactically be waiting in your fortified home well stocked with only the finest of firearms field stripped, cleaned and reassembled in record time even when it is not needed. You have many extended magazines NOT FUCKING CLIPS that are totally necessary and you have cleared your residence with all of your firearms which gives you the home field advantage as you relish in euphoria over the thought that "these fucking jews can brainwash all the people they want, but the only way they are getting my guns is by prying them from my cold dead hands after they sort through the bodies of all the unfortunate souls that chose to fuck with me in my domain."

>Not an argument.
Read it again slowly, it actually is an argument. You're just too dumb to understand how revolution is a natural inevitable consequence of oppression, or that democracy in America is a direct result of the age of enlightenment's theories of government. Without Hobbes, Locke, Paine, Rousseau, and the ancient Greeks, America today would be very different. Probably a new Europe, a federation of colonies that brought all the old world conflicts along with them.

Again, read a motherfuck book.

>I bet you're one of those open carry faggots that just dare etc etc etc

If you don't need the god-given rights guaranteed to you by the constitution, why don't you move to some shithole country like England? Get yourself on the dole m8, you don't need guns or privacy or speech.

>That doesn't prove anything. Britain has terrible gun laws today because British society changed in the 20th century. America didn't have such a change except in major cities.
And the reason for those difference or the fact I can own a semi-auto rifle even in Los Angeles is the Constitution and the results of the Revolution.

>If you add up all the federal, state, and local taxes, they are much higher than you think.
Citation needed. Also your point was that being a Superpower meant higher taxes while we just established non-superpower nation's have similar (according to you) or higher rates.

>Those were munitions magazines held by the colonial government, not privately owned weapons.
The Militia consisted of able-bodied civilians that brought their own weapons. Additionally, it only became a shooting open revolt at Lexington and Concord. Regardless, the overall effect was an attempt at British disarmament of the colonies and it's people in violation to the British Bill of Rights of 1689 and their natural rights. That act, in conjunction with all the violations in we had every right to start shooting to restore our rights.

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semayne's_case
See
It doesn't matter if there was legal precedent if they threw it out the window later because fuck those uppity colonists and their "rights"

Ok all this screams "bootlicker" so hard you are clearly running out of troll steam.

I don't want the government to take guns away but I know I could still live without one. As far as privacy or free speech goes, I'm all for it until it can hurt me or others. This isn't dead poets society and you can still live freely under a monarch. They can keep enforcing and punishing but once it becomes their primary requirement to enforce and punish that is when they have become the slaves. A true obedient regime obviously doesn't have rebels but also doesn't not need to prove they are almighty.

What the fuck is this post even saying?

I'm going to need you to state exactly why you are okay with your god-given rights being infringed by the state.

And OP stop talking about democracy if you can't even understand the concept of home rule. When you get to 6th grade you might read a couple paragraph about other former British colonies' histories, like Ireland. Or better yet just finish your tendies, fire up Skyrim and sign up with the Stormcloaks. You'll get it eventually.

>Referring to more direct control
Direct control by political elites, not the taxpayer.

>stupid high taxes
All governments have taxes. It's not a reason for rebellion unless you're an anarchist.

>I have no understanding of microbiology, historical understanding of cleanliness, and water borne disease the post.
You can't live off rum. You would die of alcohol poisoning if you tried. They still had drinking water.

>what is: blah blah blah
Those were attempts to enforce the rule of law. They were effects of the rebellion as much as causes of it.

>Hobbes, Locke, Paine, Rousseau, and the ancient Greeks
None of them were anarchists. They all believed in political authority.

>And the reason for those difference or the fact I can own a semi-auto rifle even in Los Angeles is the Constitution and the results of the Revolution.
No, it isn't. Britain's gun laws were passed more than a century after the American Revolution.

>Citation needed.
You need a citation that there are other taxes besides the federal income tax?
>Also your point was that being a Superpower meant higher taxes while we just established non-superpower nation's have similar (according to you) or higher rates.
False cause fallacy. Being a superpower is expensive because wars cost money. That's just common sense. Other nations have high taxes too because they have large gibsmedat budgets.

>The Militia consisted of able-bodied civilians that brought their own weapons
Yes, but the government had ammunition warehouses called magazines.

>Additionally, it only became a shooting open revolt at Lexington and Concord
There had already been acts of defiance to the law, such as the Boston Tea Party.

>disarmament of the colonies and it's people
No, disarmament of the government, not the people.

>It doesn't matter if there was legal precedent if they threw it out the window later because fuck those uppity colonists and their "rights"
Governments enforce their laws. This isn't something unique to 18th century England. All governments do that.

>No, disarmament of the government, not the people.
by the people of the people for the people, sperg. democratic governments are by nature of the people. you can't disarm it. what we have in the US is a democratic republic, and a democracy of democracies is not a democracy.

>None of them were anarchists. They all believed in political authority.
christ you are more of an idiot than i thought. anarchy is the law of the jungle, might makes right and fuck the individual -- a problem, not a solution. an anarchic system of government is an oxymoron and doesn't exist, anyway. in the absence of representative government humans revert to tribal leadership.