2nd Amendment Question

[davjohns 1]

You mean the War of Northern Agression?

Actually, few people make the connection that what the Southern states were doing was pretty much the same as what the 13 Colonies did...just less successful. In International Relations, the difference between a Civil War and a Revolution is just which side wins.

I'll read the article. What I wrote is not my opinion. I'm not much of a historian. It's from a series on US History that I listened to on CD once as part of my attempt to fill the gap left by my daydreaming in school. The instructor purported to be a historian. I didn't ask the CD for identification.

I'll try to find a link.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

That is pretty much the propaganda version.

Thatt's what each side says about the other side's version, dude.

[regulator 0]

Quote

Hey davjohns, should the people who are trying to shut down Mile Hi Skydiving (discussed in this thread; also this is their facebook page) be allowed to arm themselves with stinger missiles if they want? What are the odds that people who are irrationally angry about noisy planes would use the missiles to solve their "problem", compared to the odds they would use them to defend against the government? Should DZs have to install anti-missile devices on all their jump planes? What would that do to the price of jump tickets?

The idea that everybody should have access to the same weapons as the military is just nuts, IMHO. Personally, I trust our military to refuse to go along with any attempt by the White House or Congress to order the blanket confiscation of guns, or universal implantation of mind-control microchips, or whatever other paranoid fantasies the tin foil hat brigade might conjure up.

Don

------------------------------------------------
Your posts are so predictable. YAWN. You're going to put me in a coma from being bored by stupid talk about nonsensical shit.

[beowulf 1]

Quote

Quote

That is pretty much the propaganda version.

Thatt's what each side says about the other side's version, dude.

Yes, but if you read up on it and check the sources you can get an idea of how valid the claims are. I don't find that version to be credible.

[GeorgiaDon 340]

Hey Regulator, happy Inauguration Day! Are you enjoying the festivities? Four more years!

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

That is pretty much the propaganda version.

Thatt's what each side says about the other side's version, dude.

Yes, but if you read up on it and check the sources you can get an idea of how valid the claims are. I don't find that version to be credible.

I have read up on the sources. Being over 50 myself and having been a close student of US history for most of my life, I do find it to be a reasonable analysis. No, the War wasn't solely over slavery; there were multiple factors. However, but for the existence of slavery as part of the (entire) US economy, and the conflict over whether it should or should not exist, in particular in newly-admitted states in the MidWest, it is highly unlikely that either the Southern secessions or the Civil War would have happened. Yes, each side, and their respective regional descendants, have engaged in revisionist history. But in the final analysis, the still-institutionalized Southern insistence that the slavery issue was mainly an afterthought in the conflict is just silly.

[muff528 3]

Quote

I have heard that, but never saw anything credible on the issue.

I think this was a plan proposed by Congress. Lincoln seemed to have agreed and suggested to Frederick Douglass that that might be a viable option for freed slaves. Douglass rightly and indignantly dismissed that idea completely, although some freed slaves did relocate to Liberia. I think Lincoln even told Douglass something to the effect that they would never be fully accepted into society.

"......In view of this proposition, we would respectfully suggest to the assembled wisdom of the nation, that it might be well to ascertain the number of free colored people who will be likely to need the assistance of government to help them out of this country to Liberia, or elsewhere, beyond the limits of these United States—since this course might save any embarrassment which would result from an appropriation more than commensurate to the numbers who might be disposed to leave this, our own country, for one we know not of. We are of the opinion that the free colored people generally mean to live in America, and not in Africa; and to appropriate a large sum for our removal, would merely be a waste of the public money. We do not mean to go to Liberia. Our minds are made up to live here if we can, or die here if we must; so every attempt to remove us will be, as it ought to be, labor lost. Here we are, and here we shall remain. While our brethren are in bondage on these shores, it is idle to think of inducing any considerable number of the free colored people to quit this for a foreign land.

For two hundred and twenty-eight years has the colored man toiled over the soil of America, under a burning sun and a driver's lash—plowing, planting, reaping, that white men might roll in ease, their hands unhardened by labor, and their brows unmoistened by the waters of genial toil; and now that the moral sense of mankind is beginning to revolt at this system of foul treachery and cruel wrong, and is demanding its overthrow, the mean and cowardly oppressor is meditating plans to expel the colored man entirely from the country. Shame upon the guilty wretches that dare propose, and all that countenance such a proposition. We live here—have lived here—have a right to live here, and mean to live here." ~ Frederick Douglass

[beowulf 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

That is pretty much the propaganda version.

Thatt's what each side says about the other side's version, dude.

Yes, but if you read up on it and check the sources you can get an idea of how valid the claims are. I don't find that version to be credible.

I have read up on the sources. Being over 50 myself and having been a close student of US history for most of my life, I do find it to be a reasonable analysis. No, the War wasn't solely over slavery; there were multiple factors. However, but for the existence of slavery as part of the (entire) US economy, and the conflict over whether it should or should not exist, in particular in newly-admitted states in the MidWest, it is highly unlikely that either the Southern secessions or the Civil War would have happened. Yes, each side, and their respective regional descendants, have engaged in revisionist history. But in the final analysis, the still-institutionalized Southern insistence that the slavery issue was mainly an afterthought in the conflict is just silly.

I think slavery was used as a political propaganda movement to get people to support the war. The northern states didn't have as much of a problem with slavery as is claimed. Their issue with the south was much more financially motivated. Lincoln specifically said that if he could keep the states together with out abolishing slavery he would. I am sure you have seen the following quote. I think it very much shows that the primary motivation was keeping the union together and I think that was primarily motivated by financial interests.



"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause." - Abraham Lincoln

[regulator 0]

Quote

Hey Regulator, happy Inauguration Day! Are you enjoying the festivities? Four more years!

Don

-------------------------------------------------
I'm sorry did you say something? I was busy shining up my new predator missle.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

That is pretty much the propaganda version.

Thatt's what each side says about the other side's version, dude.

Yes, but if you read up on it and check the sources you can get an idea of how valid the claims are. I don't find that version to be credible.

I have read up on the sources. Being over 50 myself and having been a close student of US history for most of my life, I do find it to be a reasonable analysis. No, the War wasn't solely over slavery; there were multiple factors. However, but for the existence of slavery as part of the (entire) US economy, and the conflict over whether it should or should not exist, in particular in newly-admitted states in the MidWest, it is highly unlikely that either the Southern secessions or the Civil War would have happened. Yes, each side, and their respective regional descendants, have engaged in revisionist history. But in the final analysis, the still-institutionalized Southern insistence that the slavery issue was mainly an afterthought in the conflict is just silly.

I think slavery was used as a political propaganda movement to get people to support the war. The northern states didn't have as much of a problem with slavery as is claimed. Their issue with the south was much more financially motivated. Lincoln specifically said that if he could keep the states together with out abolishing slavery he would. I am sure you have seen the following quote. I think it very much shows that the primary motivation was keeping the union together and I think that was primarily motivated by financial interests.

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause." - Abraham Lincoln

Lincoln's individual willingness to ideologically compromise to preserve the Union does not detract one bit from the fact that abolition of slavery was a principal tenet in the ideology of the Northern Republicans whose candidates swept into office in the North in 1861; that the institution of slavery was at the very foundation of the economic conflict between the North and the South; that the Republicans' electoral ascension to power in 1861 (again, largely over the issue of slavery) was the immediate trigger to the first secessions; and it was those secessions that Lincoln would not tolerate and was willing to use military force (if necessary) to nullify.

[beowulf 1]

I don't buy that the Republicans were really that pious in the views of slavery. Like I said earlier I find it more likely that they were using it as a propaganda tool. The reason for secession is better explained by the Republicans and Lincolns support of more tariffs which really hurt the southern states. And that is what upset the south when Lincoln and the Republicans swept into office, not their position on slavery.

[billvon 2,436]

> I was busy shining up my new predator missle.

Is that what they call it nowadays? I fully support the right of people to do whatever they like with their alone time . . .

[GeorgiaDon 340]

Quote

Quote

Hey Regulator, happy Inauguration Day! Are you enjoying the festivities? Four more years!

Don

-------------------------------------------------
I'm sorry did you say something? I was busy shining up my new predator missle.

Polishing the Predator, eh? Has a nice ring to it. Choking the bishop, spanking the monkey, polishing the predator...

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

I don't buy that the Republicans were really that pious in the views of slavery. Like I said earlier I find it more likely that they were using it as a propaganda tool. The reason for secession is better explained by the Republicans and Lincolns support of more tariffs which really hurt the southern states. And that is what upset the south when Lincoln and the Republicans swept into office, not their position on slavery.

The effect of tariffs as a motivator of secessionist anger is overstated. Yes, it was one of the factors; but even by sheer weight and volume, the large bulk of the major secessionists' speeches and pamphlets of the time were dominated far more by the issue of slavery than by the tariff issue. Tariffs alone did not challenge the Southern way of life and core psyche, but the spectre of the abolition of slavery certainly did. So, too, did the effect of the Fugitive Slave Acts and the prospect of the further expansion of slavery into future states and conquered foreign territories challenge the Northern psyche, which saw itself as socially progressive, in line with, for example, most major European countries which had already abolished slavery, mainly on moral grounds. The majority (though certainly not all) of serious and qualified Civil War historians view tariffs as the smokescreen issue, not slavery. Tariffs alone, without the existence of slavery, would likely not have propelled the states to military warfare. But it is more likely that continued existence (with the prosepct of expansion) of slavery alone, even without the tariffs, would still have done so.

[beowulf 1]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo199.html

Here is a good case for tariffs being more important then you seem to think.

[regulator 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Hey Regulator, happy Inauguration Day! Are you enjoying the festivities? Four more years!

Don

-------------------------------------------------
I'm sorry did you say something? I was busy shining up my new predator missle.

Polishing the Predator, eh? Has a nice ring to it. Choking the bishop, spanking the monkey, polishing the predator...

Don

Dont let your jealousy of me give you a inferiority complex. Its not your fault you were born with that tiny thing.

[kallend 1,651]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Hey Regulator, happy Inauguration Day! Are you enjoying the festivities? Four more years!

Don

-------------------------------------------------
I'm sorry did you say something? I was busy shining up my new predator missle.

Polishing the Predator, eh? Has a nice ring to it. Choking the bishop, spanking the monkey, polishing the predator...

Don

Dont let your jealousy of me give you a inferiority complex. Its not your fault you were born with that tiny thing.

Read this and weep.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[quade 3]

Quote

The Civil war had little to do with slavery.

That's revisionist history.

Had slavery not existed in the United States, the Civil War would have never happened.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[billvon 2,436]

>Read this and weep.

Yeah, but he's talking about a big, massive missile.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Quote

The Civil war had little to do with slavery.

That's revisionist history.

Had slavery not existed in the United States, the Civil War would have never happened.

Apparently had tariffs not existed in the US, the Civil War would never have happened. Yeah, right.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo199.html

Here is a good case for tariffs being more important then you seem to think.

And for every one you post I could post 2. I don't have time to play dueling articles. So stand by your posts; I certainly stand by mine.

And if you truly believe that but for tariffs, but even with the ongoing existence and expansion of slavery, the US would never have fought its Civil War, I have some nice investments to sell you.

[beowulf 1]

Quote

Quote

The Civil war had little to do with slavery.

That's revisionist history.

Had slavery not existed in the United States, the Civil War would have never happened.

I don't think anyone is saying slavery had nothing to do with the civil war. I am saying that the tariffs had a much bigger role then is commonly thought.

There is no way to confirm whether not having slavery would have prevented the civil war. So that is a silly statement. Lincoln could have let the southern states secede. That would have saved a lot of lives and avoided a civil war.

[beowulf 1]

Quote

Quote

http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo199.html

Here is a good case for tariffs being more important then you seem to think.

And for every one you post I could post 2. I don't have time to play dueling articles. So stand by your posts; I certainly stand by mine.

And if you truly believe that but for tariffs, but even with the ongoing existence and expansion of slavery, the US would never have fought its Civil War, I have some nice investments to sell you.

I think you are reading too much into what I am saying. I don't think tariffs were the only reason for the civil war. I just thing they played a bigger role then you think and that the north wasn't as pious as they made themselves out to be regarding slavery.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo199.html

Here is a good case for tariffs being more important then you seem to think.

And for every one you post I could post 2. I don't have time to play dueling articles. So stand by your posts; I certainly stand by mine.

And if you truly believe that but for tariffs, but even with the ongoing existence and expansion of slavery, the US would never have fought its Civil War, I have some nice investments to sell you.

I think you are reading too much into what I am saying. I don't think tariffs were the only reason for the civil war. I just thing they played a bigger role then you think and that the north wasn't as pious as they made themselves out to be regarding slavery.

Nor am I denying the role of tariffs, but it was still a lesser role compared to slavery.

The almost pathological, largely subcultural, obsession so many otherwise sensible, well-educated people have with minimizing, as much as possible, the vital and prime - not tangiential or illusory - role that the slavery issue played in triggering secession and the Civil War approaches, in my judgment, the mentality of Holocaust deniers.

[regulator 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Hey Regulator, happy Inauguration Day! Are you enjoying the festivities? Four more years!

Don

-------------------------------------------------
I'm sorry did you say something? I was busy shining up my new predator missle.

Polishing the Predator, eh? Has a nice ring to it. Choking the bishop, spanking the monkey, polishing the predator...

Don

Dont let your jealousy of me give you a inferiority complex. Its not your fault you were born with that tiny thing.

Read this and weep.

If I had a dollar for every time you chimed in to defend your best friends I'd be fucking rich. Now go back to polluting the young minds of america with your senseless drivel.