New NRA President calls the Civil War "the war of northern aggression"

[Dusty Bake Activate]

It's not like there's two different governments or something though, or that either thing invalidates the other..

I know but there are a lot of right-wing militia type folks who talk about Ruby Ridge and Waco as being so tyrannical they warrant violent overthrow of the government, but say nothing about the terrorism and murder black people have been subjected to in this country's history. I was just pointing that out.

Our government has a history of killing innocent people from pretty much all racial backgrounds, which is what brings up the biggest point; You made this thread, so I assume you support gun control.

I don't know why you would assume that, but yes, I do support some gun control.

Do you want government to have a monopoly on defense with an unarmed population?

Like Jimbob and Zebediah's Ozark militia is going to stop the government if they decided to tyrannize us. :sadpaul: They already have a monopoly on defense.

The same government that injected blacks with syphilis, the same government that practiced cointelpro on the black panther party, the same government that burned those kids alive at Waco, I could go on, but I don't think I have to.

Don't see your point because people had guns and it didn't stop any of that.

The government didn't inject anybody with syphillis btw. The Tuskegee experiments were taking people that already had syphillis and studying them untreated, and lying and saying they were being treated for it. Still horribly unethical obviously, but had to make that correction.

And since you mentioned the Black Panthers, check out what their position on gun control was, I said was because the new ones are nobodies. Look what people like Larry Pinkney have to say about it. Also remember, the NRA was founded as a gun control group, and even targeted the black panthers for disarmament.

I'm not for banning guns outright.

 

[daze23]

I hate it when ca--uh, people bytch about the "tyranny" of Waco and the Ruby Ridge incident and are silent about all the terrorism committed by authorities against the Black Panthers, civil rights and black nationalist groups, and the countless cases of police brutality against black citizens...not to mention the Wilmington NC, Rosewood, and Tulsa incidents.

yeah, you can distrust the government without putting David Koresh on a pedestal

these cults always seem to boil down to some grand scheme that involves the leader fukking all the females

 

[DriZZy]

The civil war was all about slavery. A quick read of SC's justification for secession makes that clear: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp

The north was not opposed to the institution out of moralistic concerns, for sure. But they did revile slavery because it threatened their system of "free (wage) labor."

The bottom line comes down to state's rights, Lincoln didn't fight a war to prevent them from having slaves, he fought it to prevent them from seceding.

And, I hope you're aware that Lincoln actually wanted to expel blacks from America.

 

[thekingsmen]

What is pathetic is blacks even siding with any of these parties...

 

[DriZZy]

I know but there are a lot of right-wing militia type folks who talk about Ruby Ridge and Waco as being so tyrannical they warrant violent overthrow of the government, but say nothing about the terrorism and murder black people have been subjected to in this country's history. I was just pointing that out.



I don't know why you would assume that, but yes, I do support some gun control.



Like Jimbob and Zebediah's Ozark militia is going to stop the government if they decided to tyrannize us. :sadpaul: They already have a monopoly on defense.



Don't see your point because people had guns and it didn't stop any of that.

The government didn't inject anybody with syphillis btw. The Tuskegee experiments were taking people that already had syphillis and studying them untreated, and lying and saying they were being treated for it. Still horribly unethical obviously, but had to make that correction.


I'm not for banning guns outright.

1. I'm sure people thought the same exact thing during the foundation of this country. But here's a simple question, if an armed population isn't a threat to totalitarianism, why have all of the worst dictators disarmed the people?
2. I'll admit I got that wrong, I got it confused with the Guatemalan tests.
3. How much gun control do you support?
4. Do you trust government?

 

[DriZZy]

yeah, you can distrust the government without putting David Koresh on a pedestal

these cults always seem to boil down to some grand scheme that involves the leader fukking all the females

I'm not putting David Koresh on a pedestal, it doesn't matter how crazy he was, his followers didn't deserve to die.

Mormons believe some retarded shyt, should they get burned alive too? What about Scientologists?

 

[lakinta]

The bottom line comes down to state's rights, Lincoln didn't fight a war to prevent them from having slaves, he fought it to prevent them from seceding.

And, I hope you're aware that Lincoln actually wanted to expel blacks from America.

State's rights was the rhetoric used to defend the continuation and expansion of slavery into the west. And of course Lincoln initially declared the war to prevent them from seceding, but he also understood the union could not endure "half slave, half free."

And, yes I'm aware that Lincoln at one point supported the emigration of blacks. However, the civil war spanned four years, over which he -- like any human -- had a chance to grow. By the end of the war, thanks to the sacrifices of black people in the Union army, he no longer thought that way.

 

[stealthbomber]

Why bring the shyt up if you wanted to backdown from it?

i brought it up for a comparison not to debate about a completely different issue. and @ this thread turning into a branch davidian discussion, i didnt mean for this. i just wanted to point out the radicalization of the nra and a possible outcome.

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

1. I'm sure people thought the same exact thing during the foundation of this country.

No they didn't. It was musket vs. musket back then. And they fought off the British. An armed militia fending off a tyrannical government was plausible back then. Times change.

But here's a simple question, if an armed population isn't a threat to totalitarianism, why have all of the worst dictators disarmed the people?

Because dictators usually rise up from ongoing civil war and sectarian violence and impose their will via force. They disarm people to enforce their rule.

We're not Libya though. One the same token, I can easily ask why do the nations with the highest standards of living and least violence usually have strict gun control laws.

3. How much gun control do you support?

Ban semi-automatic rifles and have magazine restrictions. Ban gun show sales, stricter background checks, and mandatory registration of guns.

4. Do you trust government?

Generally speaking, no. But that's a loaded question.

 

[DriZZy]

State's rights was the rhetoric used to defend the continuation and expansion of slavery into the west. And of course Lincoln initially declared the war to prevent them from seceding, but he also understood the union could not endure "half slave, half free."

And, yes I'm aware that Lincoln at one point supported the emigration of blacks. However, the civil war spanned four years, over which he -- like any human -- had a chance to grow. By the end of the war, thanks to the sacrifices of black people in the Union army, he no longer thought that way.

While you can paint State's rights as anything you want, they are constitutional. And the complaints weren't only in relation to slavery.

Other than that, you're just making claims about what you think Lincoln thought, what's to say his mind ever changed and his later statements weren't just political?

You even admitted it, it was about secession, if he thought the nation couldn't survive with slavery in some parts but not others, why wouldn't he declare war before secession?

But, by the mid 1800s, sectional conflicts between the North and South had been festering for decades. The most serious problem was the abnormally high and unfair tariffs assessed on the South. Remarkably, in the decades before the Civil War, the South paid approximately 87% of the nation’s total tariffs. To illustrate how grossly unfair this was consider that the South consisted of 11 states with a population of 5 million, whereas the rest of the nation consisted of 23 states, 7 federal territories and a population of 22 million. Is it any wonder Southern states wanted to secede?

A November 1860 editorial in the Charleston Mercury urged South Carolina to secede, stating: " The real causes of dissatisfaction in the South with the North, are in the unjust taxation and expenditure of the taxes by the Government of the United States, and in the revolution the North has effected in this government, from a confederated republic (a voluntary union of states) to a national sectional despotism." In the1830s, tariffs were so high that South Carolina nullified them and only the Compromise of 1833, that lowered tariffs, prevented an invasion of South Carolina that was being prepared by President Andrew Jackson.

Social critic H.L. Mencken, who knows about these things, sincerely believes that held that had the South won the war, slavery would still have been substantially ended by the late 1880s. Also, he pointed out that a Southern victory would have negated the harsh Reconstruction measures that created the Ku Klux Klan. Mencken‘s theories appear reasonable because the practice of slavery in the South was being phased out in the decades before the war. The 1860 U.S. Census indicated that the slave states had 259,078 free Negroes while the "free states" had 222,745. Thousands of property owning free persons of color flourished throughout the South. Charleston, in 1861, had approximately 3,500 free persons of color – almost 8% of the city’s population.

And for what it's worth, I'm not even from the South lol

 

[thekingsmen]

i brought it up for a comparison not to debate about a completely different issue. and @ this thread turning into a branch davidian discussion, i didnt mean for this. i just wanted to point out the radicalization of the nra and a possible outcome.

Problem is you aren't actually looking at the real issue. Radicalization of the two parties are the problem, not just some outside lobbyist group. They create the chaos policies that cause Americans to pay with their lives.

 

[daze23]

it doesn't matter how crazy he was, his followers didn't deserve to die

I didn't say they deserved to die

 

[Dr. Sebi Jr.]

David Koresh was BLACK.

 

[DriZZy]

No they didn't. It was musket vs. musket back then. And they fought off the British. An armed militia fending off a tyrannical government was plausible back then. Times change.

It's impossible to say what would happen as it hasn't happened. And with that said, you talk about it not being a level playing field, yet at the same time you want to further restrict the guns the people have. Maybe without gun control things would be more similar to the US vs the British?

Because dictators usually rise up from ongoing civil war and sectarian violence and impose their will via force. They disarm people to enforce their rule.

Hitler was democratically elected, why did he disarm the Jews?

We're not Libya though. One the same token, I can easily ask why do the nations with the highest standards of living and least violence usually have strict gun control laws.

These same countries that people like to use as examples of how great gun control is don't have anywhere near as much freedom as America currently does.

Try having controversial views in the gun free paradise known as Australia and see what happens.

Ban semi-automatic rifles and have magazine restrictions. Ban gun show sales, stricter background checks, and mandatory registration of guns.

Why ban semi-automatic weapons? The majority of mass shootings don't involve them, so what threat do they hold.

Generally speaking, no. But that's a loaded question. The government isn't all one thing.

But with a track record like it has, why should the Government be the only people well armed?

 

[DriZZy]

I didn't say they deserved to die

You seem to be defending their murders though.