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

[stealthbomber]

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.

1. both parties are becoming radical?

2. the outside lobby groups control the parties

 

[DriZZy]

1. both parties are becoming radical?

Look @ those OWS retards though, they were pretty bad until they got bored with "playing protester."

 

[88m3]

You seem to be defending their murders though.

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

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?

The playing field will not be leveled at all. Leading an armed insurrection against the U. S. government is a pipe dream. Owning a gun for your personal protection is reasonable. This militia stuff is just delusional.

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

Because he was an oppressive authoritarian leader and wanted full control of the populace and no threat to his rule.

I don't see your point though. Hitler was pro-animals rights, anti-deforestation, and made efforts to curb pollution. Does that mean environmentalism is a hallmark of creeping totalitarianism?

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.

Freedom is a relative concept, and none of those nations are totalitarian police states like you're saying we should guard against becoming.

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

They're unnecessary for any practical purpose other than mass murder.

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

See my first comment.

 

[lakinta]

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?

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

This is nonsense. Of course there was some measure variety to why the South seceded, but by and large the survival and extension of slavery was the central concern. Why would it not be? it was not only the underpinning of their economy (and much of the global economy), but an effective way of organizing race relations. You point me to an article in a SC newspaper; i pointed you to their declaration of secession which explicitly identifies slavery as their central concerns; indeed, slavery is the core of their identity, hence why they call themselves slave-holding states.

As to your Lincoln question, there is little reason to believe that his endorsement of black freedom (at least by the time of the emancipation proclamation) was exclusively "political." He corresponded often with abolitionists, and eventually came to feel slavery was morally reprehensible. Just read something like Eric Foner's "Fiery Trial." And the reason why he didn't declare war before secession is that he hoped to exterminate slavery through legislation and politicking -- as any reasonable politician would.

Even the soldiers fighting the war understood this was a war about slavery. Check out Chandra Manning's "What This Cruel War Was About."

 

[DriZZy]

The playing field will not be leveled at all. Leading an armed insurrection against the U. S. government is a pipe dream. Owning a gun for your personal protection is reasonable. This militia stuff is just delusional.

Regardless of how delusional you think it is, it's still in the constitution. Why should we be picking and choosing what parts of the constitution we follow?

Because he was an oppressive authoritarian leader and wanted full control of the populace and no threat to his rule.

I don't see your point though. Hitler was pro-animals rights, anti-deforestation, and made efforts to curb pollution. Does that mean environmentalism is a hallmark of creeping totalitarianism?

Stop trying to redirect law, the bottom line is gun control and fascism go hand in hand.

Abused animals and pollution aren't a threat to government.

Freedom is a relative concept, and none of those nations are totalitarian police states like you're saying we should guard against becoming.

They still are missing basic rights like freedom of speech, I'm sure you've heard the old saying that the 2nd amendment is there to protect the first.

But again, these mass murders aren't happening with the for the most part, there's no reason to call them a problem.

They're unnecessary for any practical purpose other than mass murder.

See my first comment.

If they're only for mass murder, why does our government have them?

 

[stealthbomber]

Look @ those OWS retards though, they were pretty bad until they got bored with "playing protester."

their method wasn't exactly effective and they didn't have clear goals but the message was received loud and clear.

"we are the 99%"

if you call attempting to hold the financial institutions that sent the country into recession accountable radical than it was, but at least they did it on behalf of the majority

 

[DriZZy]

their method wasn't exactly effective and they didn't have clear goals but the message was received loud and clear.

"we are the 99%"

if you call attempting to hold the financial institutions that sent the country into recession accountable radical than it was, but at least they did it on behalf of the majority

So many of them openly admitted had no real goals, and they were ignoring the biggest financial threat to the country (The Federal Reserve).

They were a bunch of losers living in their parents basement who wanted to play protester after seeing the tea party stuff, they were still radical though.

And look at it this way, can you call anyone who's anti-Obama any worse than groups like Code Pink etc. during the Bush administration? Obviously the people who support the party in power will be less radical.

 

[DriZZy]

This is nonsense. Of course there was some measure variety to why the South seceded, but by and large the survival and extension of slavery was the central concern. Why would it not be? it was not only the underpinning of their economy (and much of the global economy), but an effective way of organizing race relations. You point me to an article in a SC newspaper; i pointed you to their declaration of secession which explicitly identifies slavery as their central concerns; indeed, slavery is the core of their identity, hence why they call themselves slave-holding states.

While slavery wasn't the core reason behind the secession, let's just pretend it was. This doesn't change the fact that the war was about preventing secession, not slavery.

As to your Lincoln question, there is little reason to believe that his endorsement of black freedom (at least by the time of the emancipation proclamation) was exclusively "political." He corresponded often with abolitionists, and eventually came to feel slavery was morally reprehensible. Just read something like Eric Foner's "Fiery Trial." And the reason why he didn't declare war before secession is that he hoped to exterminate slavery through legislation and politicking -- as any reasonable politician would.

He even admitted it was political before his supposed enlightenment, why would things really change? If someone's a racist for their whole life, it's pretty naive to believe they turned around out of nowhere. Maybe David Duke really isn't a racist anymore either right?

Here's a related snippet from an article by Walter E. Williams.

You say, "His Emancipation Proclamation freed the slaves! That proves he was against slavery." Lincoln's words: "I view the matter (Emancipation Proclamation) as a practical war measure, to be decided upon according to the advantages or disadvantages it may offer to the suppression of the rebellion." He also wrote: "I will also concede that emancipation would help us in Europe, and convince them that we are incited by something more than ambition." At the time Lincoln wrote the proclamation, war was going badly for the Union. London and Paris were considering recognizing the Confederacy and considering assisting it in its war effort.

The Emancipation Proclamation was not a universal declaration. It detailed where slaves were freed, only in those states "in rebellion against the United States." Slaves remained slaves in states not in rebellion – such as Kentucky, Maryland and Delaware. The hypocrisy of the Emancipation Proclamation came in for heavy criticism. Lincoln's own secretary of state, William Seward, said, "We show our sympathy with slavery by emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free."

Even the soldiers fighting the war understood this was a war about slavery. Check out Chandra Manning's "What This Cruel War Was About."

What about the blacks that fought for the confederacy?

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

Regardless of how delusional you think it is, it's still in the constitution. Why should we be picking and choosing what parts of the constitution we follow?

The Constitution is a living document that's supposed to be updated and reinterpreted with changing times.

The shyt about the "well-regulated militia" in the 2nd amendment was only thrown in there as a political olive branch to placate anti-federalists with militia ties anyway.

The 2nd amendment ensures the right to bear arms. And like I said, I'm not for banning guns outright, so my views are not in not in contradiction with the 2nd amendment.

Stop trying to redirect law, the bottom line is gun control and fascism go hand in hand.

Abused animals and pollution aren't a threat to government.

No, this is just a correlation/causation fallacy you're making that is belied by the fact that there are plenty of nations with robust gun restrictions that are not fascist.

They still are missing basic rights like freedom of speech, I'm sure you've heard the old saying that the 2nd amendment is there to protect the first.

And they might argue we're lacking basic freedoms like healthcare that doesn't allow you to die if you get sick, child mortality rates that rival sub-saharan African nations for black citizens, and a more robust social safety net.

But that's beside the point. The point is they have gun restrictions and they're not totalitarian or fascist. And that saying you cited is bullshyt.

But again, these mass murders aren't happening with the for the most part, there's no reason to call them a problem.

If they're only for mass murder, why does our government have them?

Uh because they have a military, that uses military weapons.

 

[DriZZy]

The Constitution is a living document that's supposed to be updated and reinterpreted with changing times.

The shyt about the "well-regulated militia" in the 2nd amendment was only thrown in there as a political olive branch to placate anti-federalists with militia ties anyway.

Was this country not founded by people overthrowing a tyrannical government?

The 2nd amendment ensures the right to bear arms. And like I said, I'm not for banning guns outright, so my views are not in not in contradiction with the 2nd amendment.

Because limiting arms that way obliterates the reasoning behind the 2nd Amendment, it's about tyranny, not hunting.

No, this is just a correlation/causation fallacy you're making that is belied by the fact that there are plenty of nations with robust gun restrictions that are not fascist.

These countries are still far worse off than we are, and if there's no correlation, show me a dictatorship with a heavily armed population.

And they might argue we're lacking basic freedoms like healthcare that doesn't allow you to die if you get sick, child mortality rates that rival sub-saharan African nations for black citizens, and a more robust social safety net.

No, that's called socialism.

But anyway, show me healthcare in the constitution please.

But that's beside the point. The point is they have gun restrictions and they're not totalitarian or fascist. And that saying you cited is bullshyt.

If it's bullshyt, why do people who offend people get arrested in places like Australia?

People use mass shootings to promote assault weapons bans, while most mass shootings don't involve assault weapons.

So if it's not mass shootings, why shouldn't people have them?

Uh because they have a military, that uses military weapons.

It's not just the military that's armed with them.

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

Was this country not founded by people overthrowing a tyrannical government?


Because limiting arms that way obliterates the reasoning behind the 2nd Amendment, it's about tyranny, not hunting.


These countries are still far worse off than we are, and if there's no correlation, show me a dictatorship with a heavily armed population.


No, that's called socialism.

But anyway, show me healthcare in the constitution please.


If it's bullshyt, why do people who offend people get arrested in places like Australia?


People use mass shootings to promote assault weapons bans, while most mass shootings don't involve assault weapons.

So if it's not mass shootings, why shouldn't people have them?


It's not just the military that's armed with them.

You're just going around in circles now. I'm done talking...peace.

 

[lakinta]

While slavery wasn't the core reason behind the secession, let's just pretend it was. This doesn't change the fact that the war was about preventing secession, not slavery.

He even admitted it was political before his supposed enlightenment, why would things really change? If someone's a racist for their whole life, it's pretty naive to believe they turned around out of nowhere. Maybe David Duke really isn't a racist anymore either right?

Here's a related snippet from an article by Walter E. Williams.

What about the blacks that fought for the confederacy?

Alright man. I'm not responding after this post; your stubbornness is mostly backed up by not-so-clever language manipulations and your expectations of how historical actors should have behaved (e.g isn't it naive to believe...). But, in short, the south seceded to protect their slavery (it's impossible to prove otherwise). Secession is an act of war; the North could either fight to completely obliterate the South or to achieve some conciliation (i.e. "prevent" secession). They chose the later.

If someone is racist for their whole life it is not "naive" to believe they could have modified the most extreme strands of their thinking. I did not say he had a change of heart out of "nowhere." I mentioned black soldiers in the Union army challenged his notions of black inferiority. They fled the South to come to the Union ranks and often died with bibles and grammar books in hand.

Lastly, Walter E. Williams is an economist. Chandra Manning is a historian who spent 10 plus years of her life looking at archival evidence. The blacks who fought for the confederacy are irrelevant to this conversation. We were talking about why the war was fought, and the war was fought primarily by white men in the South and North (most of them not slave-owners themselves). They understood they were fighting for slavery and tried to understand the struggle within the framework of Christianity. That black slaves joined the confederate fight is frankly immaterial and probably reflects their desire to maintain the paternalistic compromise Eugene Genovese once alluded to.

 

[stealthbomber]

So many of them openly admitted had no real goals, and they were ignoring the biggest financial threat to the country (The Federal Reserve).

They were a bunch of losers living in their parents basement who wanted to play protester after seeing the tea party stuff, they were still radical though.

And look at it this way, can you call anyone who's anti-Obama any worse than groups like Code Pink etc. during the Bush administration? Obviously the people who support the party in power will be less radical.

the majority of NRA members want background checks but it doesnt get passed. does that make the NRA an ineffective group?

no, it means the only voice that matters is the leader(s). the people sleeping in zucotti park and getting interviewed were lame suburban liberals, for the most part. they were there to get high and maybe get on tv.

the adbusters (who started OWS) had a goal of raising awareness to the influence of money in politics and the lack of any legal repercussion for the corporations that killed the economy. they succeeded in that, but underestimated the ignorance of the actual occupiers and that was their biggest problem. had they approached it a different way and organized more effectively, they would be seen as much more legitimate.

i do agree about going against the party in power makes you seemingly more radical though. if romney won the NRA would have no reason to be so outspoken.

 

[The Real]

What are they aligning themselves with?

Racist white men whose anti-Black/brown paranoia and resentment is further stoked by the gun manufacturers' lobby that controls the top level of the NRA. It's a puppet show for profit that deliberately depends on racism and fear.