Time to renew my NRA subscription

[AKH]

Isn't that ironic.

[Benny Moore]

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.

[lasersailor184]

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.

[Benny Moore]

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.

[GtoRA2]

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.

[lazs2]

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

[lasersailor184]

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.

[StarOfAfrica2]

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.

[lazs2]

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

[Red Tail 444]

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...

[lazs2]

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

[VermGhost]

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.

[lasersailor184]

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.

[VermGhost]

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.

[lasersailor184]

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.