2nd Amendment Question

[winsor 236]

  Quote

  Quote

I believe Lincoln was responsible for more dead americans than anyone else ever, president or not. And he did it all with his eyes open, having been warned what would happen if he attempted to take the rights of self-determination away from the individual state.

Not to mention the untold economic mess he left in the south for decades after the war.

My god! That almost makes perfect sense.

Except we're talking about SLAVERY. You do NOT get the moral high ground when you're talking about the "rights" of states when those states completely strip the real HUMAN rights of people.

Some people want to think it's their "right" to own SLAVES?

Fuck the those people.

Lincoln, by his own admission, did not give a rat's ass about slavery per se. His game plan was not so much to free the slaves as to deport them.

Flashpoint issue though it was, slavery was largely incidental to the War of Northern Aggression.

[Andy9o8 2]

Flashpoint though it was, tariffs were largely incidental to the War of Southern Treasonous Insurrection.

[quade 4]

Whatever gets you through the night...

http://youtu.be/ss8LDBNcsWc

You're wrong, of course, but I guess you can live in that world if you choose.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[GeorgiaDon 379]

  Quote

When the benifits of industrialisation were fully realized, if they were not already, the south had the means to build factories, obtain raw materials, transport goods, etc.

At the time, power for industrial production was supplied almost entirely by water wheels. The North had such power supplies in abundance, and so manufacturing centers grew up in places such as Harper's Ferry. The South is much flatter; few rivers of any size exist that have the steep grade needed to drive a large water wheel, and this was a major impediment to manufacturing on a large scale. Also, Southern port cities were burdened with significant rates of malaria, and frequent summertime epidemics of yellow fever. These diseases were a major reason for the reluctance of Northern industries to expand into the South, before and after the war. Yellow fever remained a scourge until the early 1900s, and malaria remained prevalent up through the 1930s. In addition, much of the rural population suffered from parasitic diseases such as hookworms. The North generally regarded the South as a cesspool of disease, and rightly so. Manufacturing and investment in Southern factories had to wait for the development of coal and later electrical power sources, and to a considerable degree the removal of the specter of disease epidemics.

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)

[skypuppy 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.

slavery was already in decline, long before the civil war. Without Lincoln wiping out hundreds of thousands of young american lives, it still would have disappeared in a generation.

If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

[skypuppy 1]

  Quote

  Quote

I don't think Lincoln's main goal was to end slavery. I don't think he cared that much about it. I think it was motivated much more my money then slavery. The loss of the southern states would have meant a big loss in tax revenue and he wanted to keep the union together at all costs was a factor. I think they used the slavery issue as a political tool.

You're putting the cart before the horse. The war was triggered by the Southern states' secession; Lincoln reacted, ultimately militarily, to the secession. So it really needs to be analyzed in that chronology (see above).

You're also impliedly suggesting that Lincoln's agenda must be chosen from mainly 2 motivators: economics, or slavery. But remember, Lincoln was also a lawyer; and I can tell you that many lawyers, whether by predisposition, or by training, or by career experience (he did a fair amount of criminal defense work, not just corporate work) tend to feel quite passionate about matters of legal and Constitutional principle. It may very well be that Lincoln truly felt that allowing secession not only violated the Constitution that bound the states, but would amount to the death knell of the nation; for if secession were to be permitted once, it would occur over and over again until - instead of the United States growing into a united powerhouse by the leaps and bounds occurring in the 19th Century, it would instead fracture into dozens of weak Balkan-type states, ultimately being re-subjugated by England and/or the powerful European states.

You're putting the cart before the horse. The southern states secession was triggered by Lincoln enacting laws that took away the states rights of self-determination - after the states had warned Lincoln that if he enacted it, they would secede. So he knew full well that by going ahead he would be sentencing hundreds of thousands of young americans to death and disablement, and still charged on regardless.

If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

[Andy9o8 2]

  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.

slavery was already in decline, long before the civil war. Without Lincoln wiping out hundreds of thousands of young american lives, it still would have disappeared in a generation.

It's easy to say that now through the lens of 150 years of subsequent history. Back then, slavery was seen as firmly entrenched in the US Southern states, as well as potentially expanding into newer states in the MidWest. Already addressed above.

[popsjumper 2]

  Quote

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

Don, I hope you are right but I sincerely don't think so. Military, does not defend the constitution. It simply follows orders. If they are ordered to do so, guess what? Yes...and WHO gives the orders? You guessed it.

I doubt very seriously if you'd see a military coup in this country.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[Andy9o8 2]

  Quote

  Quote

  Quote

I don't think Lincoln's main goal was to end slavery. I don't think he cared that much about it. I think it was motivated much more my money then slavery. The loss of the southern states would have meant a big loss in tax revenue and he wanted to keep the union together at all costs was a factor. I think they used the slavery issue as a political tool.

You're putting the cart before the horse. The war was triggered by the Southern states' secession; Lincoln reacted, ultimately militarily, to the secession. So it really needs to be analyzed in that chronology (see above).

You're also impliedly suggesting that Lincoln's agenda must be chosen from mainly 2 motivators: economics, or slavery. But remember, Lincoln was also a lawyer; and I can tell you that many lawyers, whether by predisposition, or by training, or by career experience (he did a fair amount of criminal defense work, not just corporate work) tend to feel quite passionate about matters of legal and Constitutional principle. It may very well be that Lincoln truly felt that allowing secession not only violated the Constitution that bound the states, but would amount to the death knell of the nation; for if secession were to be permitted once, it would occur over and over again until - instead of the United States growing into a united powerhouse by the leaps and bounds occurring in the 19th Century, it would instead fracture into dozens of weak Balkan-type states, ultimately being re-subjugated by England and/or the powerful European states.

You're putting the cart before the horse. The southern states secession was triggered by Lincoln enacting laws that took away the states rights of self-determination - after the states had warned Lincoln that if he enacted it, they would secede. So he knew full well that by going ahead he would be sentencing hundreds of thousands of young americans to death and disablement, and still charged on regardless.

Also addressed above, in the lengthy discussion about the tariff issue. At some point I'm not going to keep repeating myself to everyone who wants to repeat arguments I've already responded to up-thread. (But alas, I woke up to take a whizz, so here I am...)

And please stop mangling (a) American history and (b) American politics. The first secessions occurred in late 1860 in response to Lincoln's and other Republicans' elections, several weeks PRIOR to Lincoln's first swearing-into office. And in the US, laws are not enacted by the president, they're enacted by Congress. The particular tariff of notoriety here, the so-called Morill Tariff, was enacted by Congress on March 2, 1861, while Lincoln's Democratic predecessor, James Buchanan, was still in office.

[Andy9o8 2]

  Quote

Military, does not defend the constitution. It simply follows orders.

Actually, it does both. As I presume you'll recall, in the US military oaths, both the enlisted one and the officers' one, the respective affiant swears to (a) defend the Constitution and (b) obey the President's orders.

What are you doing up at this hour? I got up to pee. Now I'm going back to bed.

Apparently, I'm This Guy.

[davjohns 1]

I've been serving 28 years so far. I would like to think people would adhere to their oath to protect and defend the constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. But, as we see, some people think the constitution should be more flexible and absolutes are not so absolute. Also, there is the question of how many service members understand the constitution or take the oath seriously.

Nothing is a given. Nothing.

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 2]

Here's a given: it's 2:25 am here, and I'm going back to bed.

[regulator 0]

  Quote

OK, try this on for size. If Lincoln hadn't preserved the Union, the South would have had their pariah apartheid agrarian nation all blissfully to themselves, free to cling to their guns, bibles, bitterness and inbreeding, and the rest of the country would have been nice, like Canada, but with better weather.

Of course the true irony about that stupid statement...at least from your bio indicates that you are in florida. Which (geography check) directly puts you in the south. So all that shit you talk about inbreds. Those are YOUR people too. Congratulations.

[Andy9o8 2]

You do realize this is just the internet, and this is all recreation, right? Nobody really cares about angry "I don't like you" issues.

As I said, re-set your funny bone. Your ability to distinguish between joke-posts and serious ones could use some work, too.

Really, it's about the stuff, and having fun with it, not about the people and "cyber-friends versus cyber-enemies".

[regulator 0]

perhaps in the future you could ingratiate us with the use of the font.

[masterrig 1]

...and you just might see this!


Chuck

[Gravitymaster 0]

  Quote

You do realize this is just the internet, and this is all recreation, right? Nobody really cares about angry "I don't like you" issues.

As I said, re-set your funny bone. Your ability to distinguish between joke-posts and serious ones could use some work, too.

Really, it's about the stuff, and having fun with it, not about the people and "cyber-friends versus cyber-enemies".

That's pretty damn funny coming from the likes of you.

[Andy9o8 2]

  Quote

the likes of you.

Attaboy.

[Gravitymaster 0]

  Quote

  Quote

the likes of you.

Attaboy.

Sit, boy.

[skypuppy 1]

  Quote

I've been serving 28 years so far. I would like to think people would adhere to their oath to protect and defend the constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. But, as we see, some people think the constitution should be more flexible and absolutes are not so absolute. Also, there is the question of how many service members understand the constitution or take the oath seriously.

Nothing is a given. Nothing.

And also how many people, given the order from above in any sort of escalating situation, would understand what the order is intending to achieve and whether it would be against the constitution in the long run anyways...

If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

[beowulf 1]

  Quote

Oh, by the way, a fairly easy search reveals that, despite his academic credentials and publications, Tom DiLorenzo, who you cite as a source, is a white supremacist, neo-Conservative, pro-secessionist fascist pig. About as extreme a modern-day pro-Confederate partisan as one can get.

I have seen nothing in his writings or speeches to support him being a white supremacist or a fascist. I would not consider him a "neo-conservative". Whatever that means. As for pro-secessionist, that's kind of a non issue.

He does a good job of citing his sources in his writings regarding Lincoln. I find his arguments much better then the mainstream Lincoln historians. I find it very unlikely that mid 1800's Northern states people really cared that much about abolition of slavery. Those that did care were just a small minority and Lincoln was clearly not one of them. I just don't see a good argument for slavery being the primary reason for the Civil War.

[Andy9o8 2]

Oops, I meant "neo-Confederate". Sorry for the typo.

[beowulf 1]

  Quote

Oops, I meant "neo-Confederate". Sorry for the typo.

That's a meaningless distinction. The Confederate states have long been destroyed and nothing in his writings makes me think he wants it back.

[wmw999 2,560]

Interestingly enough, one of my cousins is in the final stages of writing a book on NH's regiments in the Civil War, based on contemporary journals and letters. I heard him talk on it for awhile, and one letter that stood out was from a soldier who said that he was fighting for the Union, not slavery -- that if it were about slavery, he wouldn't be fighting.

However, this is one data point. Because it's 160 years ago, we see it as being definitive. But I have a feeling that it was more complex at the time, just as issues that seem clear now are generally only clear in retrospect.

Lincoln appears to have honestly felt that preserving the Union was important (based on careful research -- I watched both "Lincoln" and "The Abolitionists" ), slavery less so, in the beginning. He did make all kinds of outreaches like the ones suggested -- to have slaves go back to Africa, promising the South that they could keep slavery until 1900, in order to preserve the union.

The facts are what they are -- we fought an internal war, people had a whole lot of reasons for joining in the fighting (probably including "yeeha"), and the North won. We're arguing about people's reasons for it, and what those facts "mean," given 150+ years of subsequent development.

Me, now, with my 20th-century generated opinions, I'd probably say "let them go." But put me, or anyone else, into that context, and it might be different. Most people's opinions are driven by where and when they are, and who they're around. It takes a zealot to really step out with radical opinions. And it takes an energetic, smart and eloquent zealot to bring others with them.

And just as one can find a "scientist" to support any scientific or pseudo-scientific theory, one can find an historian who fits in with one's worldview.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[beowulf 1]

  Quote

  Quote

Up to the Civil war it was commonly believed that the United States was a voluntary union of states. States joined the union on their own accord and believed they could leave the union when ever they wished. Then Lincoln enforced a non voluntary union. I think the Supreme Court was wrong and is often wrong. Just look at the ruling on Obamacare.

Either way I don't see how the Civil war could possibly be justified in any way shape or form. It was not worth the loss of lives just to keep the union together. Lincoln was by far the worst president ever.

Naming Lincoln as our 'worst President' shows only that you haven't researched the history and doings of all the OTHER Presidents. If you are judging Lincoln strictly because he was minding the store when the Civil War began, well...that conflict was building up for at least a decade beforehand. Lincoln did the right thing by trying to hold the Union together, and our country as it exists today is a direct result of that effort.

Not only did the war free the slaves, ending a nearly 250-year ugly history of kidnapping, slave trading, and abuse, but it finally brought us together as a nation. It began the process of civil rights, and enabled us better security because we were still one country from coast to coast.

Your comment contains so many profound ramifications that it is difficult to address. Some good things happened later as a result of the War Between The States (preferred Southern name for it) but the war itself was a terrible thing, of course. It still affects us today I think, especially politically.

I wouldn't worry about any repeal or severe restrictions on the Second Amendment. That would be worse than when the Feds passed Prohibition. There are between 250 million and up to a BILLION privately-held weapons in America, and that doesn't count anything with the military or in sporting goods stores. What people are saying is that because there are tens of thousands of gun deaths in the US, year in, year out, that sensible rules need to be in place.

I'm in favor of banning hi-cap magazines, military-style assault weapons, sure. But I'm MORE in favor of making people who want to own a gun pass a few checks first. And be trained in their use. Like cars, guns can kill if you don't know how to (drive) use them.

You seem to assume that the war was the only way to abolish slavery. I don't think this is true. Lincoln was more then just "minding the store" regarding the Civil War. Keeping the Union together at the cost of 600,000 casualties on both sides was not worth it. Would things be better with out that? I don't know, but there would be a lot fewer dead people. I don't think it really contributed that much to Civil Rights. Blacks weren't treated very well before the Civil War or after in both the North and the South.