Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Yeager on January 05, 2007, 03:02:39 PM
-
How long until the Pelosi gang starts banning guns again.
In my state the mayor of our largest city has already called for the state legislature to ban assault weapons and close gunshow loophole and requiring folks to purchase trigger locks. (In case you think your smart, assault weapons are already banned in my state, the gunshow loophole isn't a loophole at all if your being a lawabiding citizen and trigger locks are great when you dont need a gun. Its all rhetoric to divert attention while they outlaw handguns and require firearms registration)
As a result of a recent well publicised shooting, a major liberal talkshow host here in town is suggesting that any american who has their firearm stolen from them be charged with a crime for "allowing" their gun to be stolen in the first place.
All this since the pelosi gang took charge. They arent waiting very long to get back to their old habbits are they. :mad:
I've got to admit, the past 12 years has been nice not worrying about being turned into a criminal because I own firearms :cry
Time to get fired back up I guess. NRA just gained another member.
-
thats funny :) , whenever the libruls start talking about "gun control' i rejoin the NRA.
-
Why don't you become a life member? It seems cheaper in the long run and you don't have to wait for the liberals.
-
If only the right would defend the entire Bill of Rights just as vigorously as this one aspect of it we would be much better off these days. Especialy the 4th and 5th.
-
Now there was no smith found throughout all the land of Israel: for the Philistines said, Lest the Hebrews make [them] swords or spears: 1 Samuel 13:19
And he said unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side...Exodus 32:27
But if the watchman see the sword come, and blow not the trumpet, and the people be not warned; if the sword come, and take [any] person from among them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at the watchman's hand. : Ezekiel 33:6
Thank you Yeager for warning us......
-
Funny how my 'ban' AR15 shoots just like my post ban AR15.
Much ado about nothing
-
Can't the Repubs filibuster like the dems did?
Don't forget we have the VETO until 08
-
Gun facts
1. An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.
2. A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.
3. Colt: The original point and click interface.
4. Gun control is not about guns; it's about control.
5. If guns are outlawed, can we use swords?
6. If guns cause crime, then pencils cause misspelled words.
7. "Free" men do not ask permission to bear arms.
8. If you don't know your rights you don't have any.
9. Those who trade liberty for security have neither.
10. The United States Constitution (c) 1791. All Rights reserved.
11. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?
12. The Second Amendment is in place in case the politicians ignore the others.
13. 64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.
14. Guns only have two enemies: rust and politicians.
15. Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety.
16. You don't shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive.
17. 911 - government sponsored Dial-a-Prayer.
18. Assault is a behavior, not a device.
19. Criminals love gun control -- it makes their jobs safer.
20. If guns cause crime, then matches cause arson.
21. Only a government that is afraid of its citizens tries to control them.
22. You only have the rights you are willing to fight for.
23. Enforce the "gun control laws" we ALREADY have, don't make more.
24. When you remove the people's right to bear arms, you create slaves.
25. The American Revolution would never have happened with gun control.
26. "A government of the people, by the people, for the people..."
-
flatbar... if the liberals worried as much about the second as they do about seatbelts and gay marriage then I might listen to em.. the ACLU believes that no gun control law is too much and that the second does not apply to "the people" like all the other amendments and the constitution itself.. "the people" does not apply according to them.
So yeah.. the second needs more defense than most... firstly... it is perhaps the most important and basic right and second.... it is the one that is being attacked the most by your friends.
As for the NRA... any person who believes in the second and doesn't join the NRA is a hypocrite and a fool.
lazs
-
lazs, does the ACLU materially support the creation of gun control laws, or is it only a position it has taken?
-
I have written them.. they are very evasive and dishonest about the whole thing...
Their official position is that (contrary to every constitutional scholar) that, the second is not an "individual right" that it somehow applies only to the state.. they won't get into it any more than that because I think even they realize how silly that position is. They really avoid discourse on it.
The real reason is that no socialist/commie wants people to be armed... sooooo... just like the vouchers subject they stand mute or, nearly so.. they realize that armed and educated people don't turn to socialism. Only the unarmed and indoctrinated will submit.
I think this is the biggest thing I have against the ACLU... their agenda is socialist... they will spend countless hours and resources to split the finest hair over "seperation of church and state" when it doesn't even really exist but... they gleefully watch as we are disarmed and indoctrinated in public schools.
The founder of the ACLU was an avowed commie... the apple has not fallen far from the tree.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
flatbar... if the liberals worried as much about the second as they do about seatbelts and gay marriage then I might listen to em.. the ACLU believes that no gun control law is too much and that the second does not apply to "the people" like all the other amendments and the constitution itself.. "the people" does not apply according to them.
So yeah.. the second needs more defense than most... firstly... it is perhaps the most important and basic right and second.... it is the one that is being attacked the most by your friends.
As for the NRA... any person who believes in the second and doesn't join the NRA is a hypocrite and a fool.
lazs
So, the prospect of some future gun control, how ever thin the evidence of that may be, outweighs the real assult on the 4th and 5th that is going on right now?
In a signing statement the Prez declares that the gvt has the right to open and read your private mail w/o a warrent that is easily obtained, and your worried, no, paranoid about a few anti gun activists?
Boy, the NRA sure is playing you guys like a Stradivarius Violin.
-
The ACLU is still a communist organization in all but name. They are "neutral" on gun control but will defend an extremist "christian" group ridiculing dead soldiers at their funerals while denying mainstream christians the right to free speech. They defend the nutjobs only because they know these people are a detriment to the casue of christianity.
-
Originally posted by Flatbar
So, the prospect of some future gun control, how ever thin the evidence of that may be, outweighs the real assult on the 4th and 5th that is going on right now?
In a signing statement the Prez declares that the gvt has the right to open and read your private mail w/o a warrent that is easily obtained, and your worried, no, paranoid about a few anti gun activists?
Boy, the NRA sure is playing you guys like a Stradivarius Violin.
The Second Amendment puts the teeth in the rest of them. Without the Second Amendment, the rest of them aren't worth the paper they're printed on.
-
Boy, the NRA sure is playing you guys like a Stradivarius Violin.
====
How so? What I told you was that within days of the democrats taking power in both houses, the mayor of the largest city in my state called on the state legislature to enact tough new "common sense gun laws". A Ban on Assault weapons, closing the gun show loophole and requiring trigger locks.
Read this:
The mayor is calling for passage of four new laws:
Closing the non-existent "gun show loophole"
Banning so-called "assault weapons"
Mandating the use of locking devices on firearms
Creating a "crime gun tracing program"
Here's the other side of the story on all of these proposals:
Gun shows
The "gun show loophole" is a myth, manufactured by the gun control
lobby.
Fewer than 1% of felons get their guns at gun shows (US DOJ study).
All laws that apply to sales of guns, by dealers and by private
citizens, outside of gun shows, also apply at gun shows. There is no
"loophole."
The only gun shows conducted in the greater Seattle area - those put on
by the Washington Arms Collectors - ALREADY require background checks
before a gun may be purchased. No background check, no membership; no
membership, no gun sales.
"Assault weapons"
These firearms are rarely used in crimes.
These firearms are in fact are less lethal than the common duck hunter's
shotgun.
Contrary to popular belief, these firearms are NOT "readily convertible
to full automatic fire."
Approximately 200 high power rifle matches are conducted in Washington
annually, matches where so-called "assault rifles" play a prominent
part.
Mandatory "safe" storage
Washington's existing reckless endangerment statute (RCW 9A.36.050) may
already be used to prosecute irresponsible gun owners.
Accidental shootings in Washington are rare. According to the CDC,
accidental shootings don't even make the "top 10" causes of accidental
deaths among juveniles.
Personal security requirements vary widely; one state-mandated size does
not fit all.
Trigger locks and loaded firearms are an inherently unsafe combination,
something that all lock manufacturers caution against.
Trigger locks do not prevent theft of firearms.
"Crime gun" tracing
The BATF already runs the National Tracing Center, available to all law
enforcement agencies
The Washington Department of Licensing already maintains the state
pistol registry, where all handguns sold at retail are linked to the
purchaser
Tracing information is already available for criminal prosecution of
violators.
The true purpose for this so-called tracing scheme is to use the data to
sue gun dealers and distributors because federal law prohibits such use
of federal data.
The true root cause of so-called "gun violence" in Seattle and other
urban areas is the proliferation of gangs, of drug dealing, and of the
failure of the criminal justice system to keep dangerous criminals
incarcerated. All the gun control laws in the world won't control these
activities. just look at the gang and drug problem in England.
I need you to do two things:
Write a letter to the editor of your local newspaper, using the talking
points above, to tell the truth about Mayor Nickels' gun control scheme.
Pick one topic, keep the letter down to about two to three paragraphs to
increase the chance it will be published. Contact information (including
e-mail addresses normally) for letters to the editor is available on the
editorial page of your newspaper.
Write or call your state legislators (one Senator and two
Representatives) and ask them to keep you informed on proposed gun
control legislation. Make sure THEY know that Mayor Nickels' (and
Washington Ceasefire's) gun control agenda will have no impact on crime.
====
This is just the start. Sign up for the NRA today. Hopefully two years is all we will have to put up with from these people.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
How long until the Pelosi gang starts banning guns again.
Thank God for the NRA.
Without it, the Chinese, Nazis, Gangters, Democrats, Islamists, Blue Haired Ladies, Russians, Religous Crack Pots would have overthrown America long ago.
Gotta keep the Philco safe in the doublewide, ya know. :rofl
Regards,
hap
-
Buy a few more rifles and you'll feel a lot safer...
-
Just cleaned the guns today. I bought some ammo and am looking to buy some more.
The revolution begins soon.
-
become life members you noobs
-
the NRA i s abunch of Old White Viagra gobbling 3,000$ trap gun shooters...
Makes me sick,,,they don tdo crap for the folks who like our battle rifles..
whats worse its our only real prybar available to wack the linguine spinned morons in the house
-
hap, you come across as someone who thinks they are intelligent. Im not inclined to go that far. But I do think you can toss a good salad.
regards,
Yeager :D
-
What I find odd about the whole thing is the focus on rifles. Over here the focus is on pistols, which seem to be preferred for crimes. Getting a firearms license here for a rifle is fairly easy (unless you're a luny). But pistols... no way. You have to be a collector or have a special requirement.
-
Ever see the southpark episode about Family Guy?
If you get one episode pulled because of content, suddenly all other episodes become easier to cancel until finally, you cancel the entire show.
Same thing with guns. Once the first guns are banned, the next set become easier. And the easiest way to do this is to go after the "Scariest" bunch out there.
-
2 much $ in the hands of rebublican lobbyists put then out of power 2 begin with.
give all ur $$$ to nambla instead if u r smart & liek lobbyists.
no give $ to me, i m a lobyist:noid :noid :noid :aok :aok :aok :aok :aok :aok
-
Ok flatbar... we will play it your way. If gun control is not a big issue with anyone then why do the liberal democrats all support it so much... if they have no chance then why do they shoot themselves in the foot (so to speak) over it all the time?
If there is no chance that new gun laws will be passed after today say... then why do liberal socialist democrats continue to bring them up and vote for em? It would seem that they are making enemies... losing votes they can ill afford.
How much gun control is ok with you flatbar? do we have enough yet? too much?
Are you happy that under republicans we got all but 11 states to pass right to carry laws or.... unhappy? It wouldn't have happened under a klinton...didn't happen... soooo... The NRA is playing us? the protection of commerce act that kept the firearms industry was passed by republicans and voted against by liberal democrats... An the NRA is "playing" us??? Some billionaire pollock anti gun guy supports democrats and the NRA is playing us? The brady bunch is a big democratic party group hug and the NRA is "playing" us?
You seem to be pretty blind to what is going on... to the fact that there is a very large percentage of the liberal socialist democrat wing that will do everything to take away our 2nd amendment rights even more than they have allready.
The second is important to us because (as has been said) it guarantees the others... It sure seems that the second is important to the blue staters too... they want to abolish it. they chip away at it every chance they get... And the NRA is playing us?
destroying the second must be really really important to tne democrats and socialist liberals because they continue to work at it even tho they know it hurts their cause... even tho it loses them votes... it is so important and soooo wrong that they won't even admit they are doing it.... klinton and kerrie posing with shotguns... that sort of thing... doesn't that seem pretty outlandish even to you?
vulcan... it is difficult to conceal a rifle. We have right to carry laws in most states to good effect.... Handguns are very useful for protection. The second says "shall not be infringed" that means handguns and fully automatic weapons in my way of interpreting it.
lazs
-
greencloud... you don't know squat about the NRA.. they very actively support battle rifles. Good excuse to keep your $35 tho.
Thanks for your support tho..
lazs
-
maybe $35 is a lot of money to him.
-
What I don't understand is how people fall for the same old BS "logic" that these folks spew.
"An assault rifle is deadly!" So is a spork from KFC if I stab you in the friggin eye with it. Plus my hands will have that lovely lemony smell from the moisty nap that comes with the spork! An assault rifle is no more deadly than any other weapon.
"Guns kill people!" No..a gun does not kill a person. You can take a gun and place it on a table and tell it to kill someone and all it does is just lie there. It'll stay on that table until it rusts away and never harm anyone. It's the person with the gun in their hand that kills people.
I know! Lets outlaw people! Then no one will get hurt!
Oh......Wait.....
BTW..I've been a member of the NRA for over 10 years.
:)
-
Speaking of the 2nd Amendment Thomas Jefferson included it because he thought after a time that the Government would be so corrupt that every once in awhile they would have to be purged.
Gee....the man made sense over 200 years ago....guess he knew what was coming.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Just cleaned the guns today. I bought some ammo and am looking to buy some more.
The revolution begins soon.
Originally posted by Hajo
Speaking of the 2nd Amendment Thomas Jefferson included it because he thought after a time that the Government would be so corrupt that every once in awhile they would have to be purged.
Gee....the man made sense over 200 years ago....guess he knew what was coming.
You want to be careful guys, that kind of comment can get you on a watch list these days. :rofl
-
Originally posted by shooter1cac
What I don't understand is how people fall for the same old BS "logic" that these folks spew.
"An assault rifle is deadly!" So is a spork from KFC if I stab you in the friggin eye with it. Plus my hands will have that lovely lemony smell from the moisty nap that comes with the spork! An assault rifle is no more deadly than any other weapon.
"Guns kill people!" No..a gun does not kill a person. You can take a gun and place it on a table and tell it to kill someone and all it does is just lie there. It'll stay on that table until it rusts away and never harm anyone. It's the person with the gun in their hand that kills people.
I know! Lets outlaw people! Then no one will get hurt!
Oh......Wait.....
BTW..I've been a member of the NRA for over 10 years.
:)
How confident are you in your logic?
Tell you what, I disagree. So lets have a battle to the death over it, to prove your point you will be armed with a spork from KFC, I will be armed with an assault rifle.
-
tell you what vulcan, heres a more realistic deal: lets just decide to have you two make a commitment to kill each other, first one to accomplish the task wins.
Do you get it?
-
That's a good reminder. Much better than any reminder the NRA supplies. While I don't 100% agree with everything the NRA does, they do understand how our 'Governmental System' works and know how to exploit all it's weaknesses to support gun ownership. For that, they have earned my support.
Also, I get a chuckle everytime a liberal media type sneers at the NRA. The NRA is in several ways a true representative of the gun owning citizens in the USA. They don't ask members to vote on NRA policies or make decisions in their structure, but by serving as representatives for millions of law abiding citizens (who work enough to afford the $35.00 fee and obviously have enough money to buy guns), they serve a purpose in our Government.
I will admit, the NRA scare tactics and mail spam can be quite aggravating. I read some article (online?) that the Democrats were going to tone down their gun grabbing ways. I don't trust them. It would be refreshing to see the Democrats focus more on gay marriages and killing babies instead of guns though.
Regards,
Malta
-
Originally posted by stantond
It would be refreshing to see the Democrats focus more on gay marriages and killing babies instead of guns though.
I agree. And, both parties have made expiditious alliances that bewilder. Action from principle rather than expediency I favor.
At least there exists discussion rather than a rant fest.
Greetings,
hap
-
http://strategosmedia.com/videos/GunControlWitness.wmv
Download and watch the video. I posted this before in a post that is buried a few pages back.
My family has always done a lot of shooting, but due to my ailing grandfatherbeing irresponsible about his duck club membership for future family to enjoy as he did, we've made the transition (or are making a transition) to doing Upland Bird Hunting or Wingshooting, trap, skeet, international bunker sporting clays, etc. I got an MEC hand loader from my dad from christmas and have already started to research formulas for doing my own 12 gauge shotshell reloading, which on the whole is cheaper than buying boxes of Winchester AA's. Eventually, and I hope not, the goverment will prohibit the purchase of ammunition, or even materials for hand loading itself, which is why I urge every one of you to investigate handloading for whatever type of cartridge you fire.
I pray to teh gods that it doesn't come to this but with liberals taking over government, and ESPECIALLY in California, us law abiding citizens might have to revert to flintlock to defend ourselves from government in the future.
Yeager, I heard Washington State has right to carry permits, or what is the deal with that?
-
The $35 the NRA charges is a pittance. Most gun owners spend more than that on a couple of boxes of ammo or a new sling. Their firearms are 10-100 times that costly.
The democrats are making war on the second amendment.. there is no denying that. They have shown their colors and I don't expect them to change. They realize that it is alienating them from voters but I believe that they have done the research.
I believe that they know that, for the most part, the type of person who would defend the second amendment would never vote for democrats anyway... By attacking gun owners and the second amendment they lose little and consolidate their base of women and womenly men.
lazs
-
Yeager, I heard Washington State has right to carry permits, or what is the deal with that?
====
Yes, currently. Mine expires 8/07 and was granted to me by the local police department. It was a renewal and if memory serves me correctly, cost 35$.
When it comes to politicians all I need to know is whether they support the 2nd amendmant. If they do then chances are good we are in agreement on 90% of all other issues and I vote for them. If the do not support the 2nd amendment then I do everything I possibly can to defeat them.
-
yeager... that is my point... the democrats know that anyone who would support the second amendment probly would never vote for them anyway so they just go ahead and tear at the second to get the soros and brady bunch money and consolidate their hand wringing group of voters.
lazs
-
CpMorgan, Yeager, VermGhost,
All I can say is keep up the good work!:aok
-
Originally posted by Hajo
Speaking of the 2nd Amendment Thomas Jefferson included it because he thought after a time that the Government would be so corrupt that every once in awhile they would have to be purged.
Gee....the man made sense over 200 years ago....guess he knew what was coming.
Jefferson was thinking that revolutions would happen every 20-30 years. It really happened 90 years later, and never since then.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Jefferson was thinking that revolutions would happen every 20-30 years. It really happened 90 years later, and never since then.
When they made the constitution there was no notion of people becoming career politicians. This did not happen widely until the 1840's when the basis for the two major parties began being influence by the industrialization of the north as opposed to the slow supporting lower business potential of the agrarian south. This is a divide that contributed to the civil war.
-
laser... please point to something that indicated that Jefferson thought revolution would happen every 20 years.
lazs
-
Shays rebellion and whiskey rebellion.
-
i find the reasons for the whiskey rebellion humorous, a war was fought with england over taxes, and the first thing the new american govt does is to tax whiskey to pay for the war debts.
-
You'd find it a lot less humorous when you see what they actually did. First, the farmers would make whiskey out of the excess crops they had. This served two purposes. It would generate some extra funds for when they were barely scraping past. One barrel of whiskey was worth many cart fulls of wheat and hay. And infinitely more easy to deal with, in trading, transportation and storage.
Most farmers didn't actually deal with money. They had no use for it, nor any place to trade with it. They most often used whiskey. The whiskey would often cover the costs of a bad season or harvest, if it happened.
And then the US government put a tax on it. But unlike our current tax system where the richest are taxed the most and the poorest not at all, the farmers were taxed at about double the rate of commercial whiskey makers.
How would you react?
And since Lazs knows little of US history, I'll explain what happened next. The Shay's rebellion happened in Massachusetts. This was during the articles of confederation. They were taxed and they rebelled. They tarred and feathered a few tax collectors and mainly gathered. The government and the governmental militias refused to march against them, and for good reason. A lot of the militia soldiers were farmers themselves.
So the Massachusetts governor did anything any reasonable politician would do. He hired mercenaries and sent them out against the farmers.
Pretty much the same thing happened in the early constitution days with the Whiskey Rebellion. Except now the central US government had power and decided to exercise it to prove it's authority. Washington marched out with thousands of troops against the families in western pennsylvania. Gotta love those compassionate government types...
-
Isn't that ironic.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Jefferson was thinking that revolutions would happen every 20-30 years. It really happened 90 years later, and never since then.
That's because the government won and the people lost. Now, before you start crying "redneck," I live in the north and I'm not in the Klan. But if you do some objective research on just what went on in the American Civil War, you'll find that what Lincoln did was quite unconstitutional. The way the founders of America intended it, withdrawing from the United States was a right. Attacking a state or group of states for leaving the union is nearly as tyrannical as attacking a person for leaving the country.
Also, much falsehood is taught regarding the reasons for the war. The public schools would have you believe that the war was fought over slavery. It wasn't. Slavery really had little to do with it; the Civil War was fought for the exact same reason that the American Revolution was fought. It was about representation.
-
I know what Lincoln did was wrong. But to say that the war was not about slavery is just ignorant. Slavery was the cause of every single other reason that led into the war.
Thus, logic would lead you to say that slavery was the reason the war was fought.
-
But it wasn't about slavery. It was about taxation. Try talking to an educated man from a southern state sometime; "their" version of what happened is drastically different from "ours." I believe that the truth is in the middle.
Back on subject, the first thing Hitler did to the German Jews was to require gun registration. The next was to outlaw firearms possession by Jews.
-
Want to start a betting pool for how long it takes democrats to try and bring back the AW ban?
I give it 6 months or less.
-
laser... You not only don't know much about history but like most young people... you know just enough to be dangerous.
I didn't ask you for examples of rebellion... I asked you to point to something that Jefferson said that would indicate that he felt that violent revolution was needed every 20 years.
He did say that every once in a while that the tree of freedom needed to be nurtured with the blood of patriots but I have never seen anything said by him that indicated he expected a bloody revolution every 20 years.
I also believe the the the whiskey rebellion and the war between the states had the wrong outcomes and that the governments involvements in both was unconstitutional.
While it is perhaps somewhat ironic that the states were taxed to pay for the war to end taxation (without representation) from england... it is not as ironic as it may at first seem... laser is being a drama queen and selective... the revolution was not only not entirely about taxes but even so far as the tax part went.... It was taxation without representation.
It could be argued that a tax to pay for a war was a tax with representation.
There really was no constitutional basis for the war against the south tho.
lazs
-
laser... You not only don't know much about history but like most young people... you know just enough to be dangerous.
So says the man who knows neither how this country was founded or what followed right after. A simple five minute search:
"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion... We have had thirteen States independent for eleven years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half, for each State. What country before ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion?"
But it wasn't about slavery. It was about taxation. Try talking to an educated man from a southern state sometime; "their" version of what happened is drastically different from "ours." I believe that the truth is in the middle.
I am from the south numbnuts. The truth is that every single reason for the war, from representation, states rights, taxation all stem from the base reason that the southern states believed it was their right to hold men in bondage.
While it is perhaps somewhat ironic that the states were taxed to pay for the war to end taxation (without representation) from england... it is not as ironic as it may at first seem... laser is being a drama queen and selective... the revolution was not only not entirely about taxes but even so far as the tax part went.... It was taxation without representation.
Actually, this is the most ironic thing that ever crossed these boards.
The reason we were being taxed was because the british government had paid for all of the French and Indian war themselves, even though we fought with them. The british government decided that it was a fee for us to exist. Let me see if I can dig up a hilarious quote of yours...
You realize that right? It only survived because it was under the protection of it's ruler.. the King of england? It wasn't every man for himself. Any neighbor that wanted to burn the colony of rhode island to the ground would have to answer to the most powerful government in the world. You are pointing to a colony that was protected by the most powerful nation on earth.
If I wasn't such an *******, I just would have internalized my laughter. :rofl
-
Originally posted by shooter1cac
"An assault rifle is deadly!" So is a spork from KFC if I stab you in the friggin eye with it. Plus my hands will have that lovely lemony smell from the moisty nap that comes with the spork!
Sorry, due to corporate cost cutting measures, KFC no longer includes the handy little wet-nap in their spork packets. Plain napkins must suffice.
I'm sure the spork is still just as deadly as it ever was though.
-
laser... so you are from the south? I probly spent more time there than you ever have. what does that have to do with it.
The taxation the brits did was not only to pay for their wars although that was a large part of it. It was to pay for a government that the colonists had no representation in. I have no idea what part of "taxation without representation" you don't get.... I have to assume that you just ignored the whole point of the revolution because it didn't fit with what you wanted.
I had forgotten about the quote on jefferson tho. good one. It wasn't something that he said often. I always got the impression that he meant it as an exaggeration to make a point since... he never did anything to encourage it. I think you will agree that when he had strong convictions he was a man of action and got real busy.
I don't know where you get the idea that you know more than me (or anyone) about how the country was founded or even about rhode island history. I think that most of us know it but that only you are getting the wrong idea from it.
Do you really think that rhode island could have survived an attack from the other states or even a good sized warlord group? The reason that didn't happen was the rule of the brits... british law and protection... put any spin on it you want but a warlord declaring rhode island was his would have been crushed by the brits... They weren't too happy when the colonies tried to gain independence. Don't even try to tell me that rhode island existed without the consent, or the ignoring by.. the brits.
you may have read some history but you seem to be able to put a twist on every event that has nothing to do with what really happened or why.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Just cleaned the guns today. I bought some ammo and am looking to buy some more.
The revolution begins soon.
There will be no revolution.
You haven't shot anyone.
You're not going to shoot anyone.
Go back to sleep, it's past your bedtime. And no reading under the covers.
...kids these days...
-
the truth is probly somewhere between what laser and redbottom are saying...
The wild eyed revolutionary and the lefty. If the red states continue to feel pressure from the blue there will be violence.
Violence in our cities is not something that never happens... riots are commonplace. The blue cities will have to erupt in more violence if they (ironically) get their way. the more pressure they put on the cities with their meddling big brotherism and the more socialism and class warfare and poverty they heap on the filthy crime ridden cities the more likely the riots.
conversly... the more the blue cities riot the more threatened those living in red areas feel and the less likely they will be to accept being disarmed and "protected" with snooping and big brotherism.
People will die.... people die here in riots all the time. Most of the deaths will be in blue areas.
It really is a war starting between the blue and the red. How far it gets or how much violence before some solution is reached.... who knows? But we have two Americas and they really can never meet. You can't live in a skyscraper land of filth and have the same life as the rural people... people who want to own their own land and be left alone.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
So says the man who knows neither how this country was founded or what followed right after. A simple five minute search:
Originally posted by lasersailor184
I am from the south numbnuts. The truth is that every single reason for the war, from representation, states rights, taxation all stem from the base reason that the southern states believed it was their right to hold men in bondage.
Wrong! Did you ever take a US History to Reconstruction Class? Slavery or the notion of abolishing slavery from the North's viewpoint didn't happen UNTIL 1863 with Lincoln's drafting of the Emancipation Proclamation. Abolitionism was a growing movement, but it was not widely accepted by the north until around the Secession and the great loss of the North at the Battle of Antietam. Lincoln would have kept slavery legal for the south if it meant the Union could be intact. In addition in 1861 Congress passed a Resolution declaring that the war WAS NOT about slavery. Lincoln also felt that states had to emancipate slaves, it was not a federal responsibility, he wanted slave owners compensated for their losses, emancipation must be gradual (ending in about 1900 in his estimation) he did not want to alienate anyone either.
Abolitionism was a comparitvely new movement that began to grow with the religious Reform movements of the 1830/40's.
Yes there was a great difference of opinion on states rightsin relation of North vs. South. But the beleif of the states to hold men in bondage stemmed from economics. The North was a powerhouse of industrialization that exported goods and raw materials. The south was based on Agriculture with a huge cotton crop that depended on the cotton mills of the industrialized north to process its large amount of product and ship it. Many people who have not taken a higher education US history course beleive that Lincoln was a man that got things rolling when in fact the country was already seriously devided before he came into being the president. This was because of several issues including the Missouri Compromise, the Liberty party and the subsequent annexation of the Republic of Texas (pro Slavery), Popular Soveirngty-basis for the Compromise of 1850, Tarriff of 1828, Tarrif of Abominations (south sees all of these tarrifs by the heads of the rich northern manufacturers, The Dred Scott Case, John Brown and the Arsenal at Harpers Ferry(both north and south see this as ignition for what the south will do the the North and what the South will do to the North, martyr for the North:popular view), Nat Turner revolt (as a scapegoat and possiblity for what free slaves might do).
Actually, this is the most ironic thing that ever crossed these boards.
The reason we were being taxed was because the british government had paid for all of the French and Indian war themselves, even though we fought with them. The british government decided that it was a fee for us to exist.
to make the causes of this point more clear Colonial resistance the to Crown was because of: The Proclamation of 1763, England wanted French culture out of N.America, tens of thousands of British troops in the colonies which prompts the Quartering Acts by the Crown, British Empire is expanding and exhibits more authority in exercising enforcement of its laws (americans have been fundamentally defiant to authority), the first time the colonies have united against a common enemy, British cultural view of disdain for colonists under british rule, and Britain is in deep debt from the French and Indian war.
You learn something new every day.
-
The taxation the brits did was not only to pay for their wars although that was a large part of it. It was to pay for a government that the colonists had no representation in. I have no idea what part of "taxation without representation" you don't get.... I have to assume that you just ignored the whole point of the revolution because it didn't fit with what you wanted.
It wasn't a tax to pay for THEIR wars, it was a tax to pay for OUR wars. On top of that, the british citizens themselves were paying for our wars at a tax rate about 3x what we paid.
The british citizens were paying for our war 3x more then we were paying for it.
The Taxation without Representation was just an idea to foment revolution. I said in another thread that the majority of the fighting was done by the married man aged 20-40. What I didn't say was that the majority of men did NOT fight, nor did they want to have a revolution. You had maybe 20% of the population (possibly less) held extremist views about revolting. Maybe 30% of the population held views that the british government was good. And the rest simply didn't care, or didn't think it was important enough to get involved in. They were happy where they were. So to revolt the extremists had to politicize issues to gain further support from the 50% who didn't care.
Like the Taxation without Representation. We were being taxed for such paltry sums, yet with some good politics the extremists made it look awful. And the Boston Massacre. A mob of people attack a tiny garrison of british troops, and 2 bostonians die when the brits defend themselves and fight back. With a little politicizing, the british were seen to have attacked the americans and killed hundreds with little provocation.
Wrong! Did you ever take a US History to Reconstruction Class? Slavery or the notion of abolishing slavery from the North's viewpoint didn't happen UNTIL 1863 with Lincoln's drafting of the Emancipation Proclamation.
No. The emancipation proclamation needed to be written after the first Union victory, so as to credit the document as having power. It just so happens that the Union got their tulips kicked up until 1863. It would have been laughable to do it before.
For example, let's say that Luxembourg suddenly makes the declaration that North and South Carolina belong to it. Everyone would laugh at them. But let's say that they kick some american bellybutton on the battlefield, THEN make the proclamation. Everyone would take it seriously.
Other then that, I pretty much agree with you, except for the resolution, which I have never heard of.
-
it's also said that after Antietam, Lincoln did the EP to give northern soldiers a moral reason for fighting rather than just in anger at the sucession. I should correct myself about the notion of abolitionism had already started but became a popular thing in the north with the appearance of the EP, a more widely accepted attitude.
-
There I disagree. From what I remember, the abolition movement started in the 30's, and was at a fever pitch by the time of the war, especially with all the politics and escalations of tensions all around.
A lot of people will also say that England was on the verge of joining the confederates. This isn't true because the abolition movement was larger in england then it was in the North.
-
england supported the confederacy because the south had cotton, england needed cotton for their mills,england inported cotton made it into cloth to export, it had nothing to do with slavery, it was a money thing.
-
If the only reason for the war between the states was slavery in the U.S. then the U.S. should have simply let the south secede as was their constitutional right.. as was stated.. the EP was given at a time when the North was sick of war and losing major battles and was threatened with england and other countries joining or helping the south. It was given to invigorate the anti slave northerners to "stay the course".
Lincoln himself said that if keeping slavery would keep the union intact that he would have gladly allowed it. It was never about slavery but always about the right of the states to secede from the union.
In any case... slavery was a loser. If the south had been allowed to secede then slavery would have collapsed on it's own as a viable economic alternative within a few decades. No viable, late 19th century country could exist using slavery.
lazs
-
From The Simpsons, The Sweetest Apu:
Proctor: All right, here’s your last question. What was the cause of the Civil War?
Apu: Actually, there were numerous causes. Aside from the obvious schism between the abolitionists and the anti-abolitionists, there were economic factors, both domestic and inter–
Proctor: Wait, wait… just say slavery.
Apu: Slavery it is, sir.