View Full Version : Senator Lee to Offer Amendment Tonight to Ban Most Gun Control in the Senate.
This is from Military Arms Channel's Facebook page. Thoughts?
Senator Lee to Offer Amendment Tonight to Ban Most Gun Control in the Senate.
We realize it’s short notice, but we wanted to alert you that, later tonight, Senator Mike Lee of Utah intends to offer an amendment to the budget resolution that would prohibit any gun control legislation which does not have a 2/3 vote in the Senate.
We know, we know. We would prefer to prohibit any and all gun control, even if it had 100 votes.
But if the Lee amendment is passed, the practical effect will be that gun control can never again pass the Senate.
Given the Armageddon-like fight which we are now engaged in in the Senate, achieving a gun-control peace for the rest of our lifetimes would be a good thing.
ACTION: Contact your Senators. Ask them to vote for the Lee amendment which would require a 2/3 vote for the Senate to impose any gun control.
You may Click here to use The Action Center, or you can call your Senators since time is short. The number for the Senate is 202-224-3121.
What would keep them from just voting to repeal the amendment?
Not only is it a long shot, it is also unconstitutional. Article 1, Section 3 of the Constitution specifies that the VP has the power to break tie votes on bills in the Senate to pass a bill. This is a constitutional lock on a simple majority as the threshold to pass a bill.
The fact that Senator Lee does not understand this is a little scary.
Heavy Metal
03-22-13, 16:37
Not only is it a long shot, it is also unconstitutional. Article 1, Section 3 of the Constitution specifies that the VP has the power to break tie votes on bills in the Senate to pass a bill. This is a constitutional lock on a simple majority as the threshold to pass a bill.
The fact that Senator Lee does not understand this is a little scary.
Can't bind the acts of a future Congress. The SC has already established that.
It would take an Amendment to do what he is proposing.
As noble as it is, it is unconstutional unless you do it with an Amendment.
Not only is it a long shot, it is also unconstitutional. Article 1, Section 3 of the Constitution specifies that the VP has the power to break tie votes on bills in the Senate to pass a bill. This is a constitutional lock on a simple majority as the threshold to pass a bill.
The fact that Senator Lee does not understand this is a little scary.
Hmm so his point is moot.
Hmm so his point is moot.
Moot and foolish. Bills like this are nothing more than pandering to the constituents.
Alaskapopo
03-22-13, 17:01
Moot and foolish. Bills like this are nothing more than pandering to the constituents.
True much like state laws saying they will arrest federal agents trying to enforce federal laws. Supremacy clause kicks in. Basically these are not laws they are statements.
Pat
True much like state laws saying they will arrest federal agents trying to enforce federal laws. Supremacy clause kicks in. Basically these are not laws they are statements.
Pat
Utah is guilty of the above as well.
If the republicans had any balls, they would offer a repeal of the Hughes amendment or the import ban as an amendment to UBC.
True much like state laws saying they will arrest federal agents trying to enforce federal laws. Supremacy clause kicks in. Basically these are not laws they are statements.
Pat
Tell that to Sheriff Tony Demeo. Watch this 3 part video interview of him explaining his position and threatening to use force against Federal agents. http://politicalvelcraft.org/2011/10/19/nevada-sheriff-tony-demeo-stops-federal-agents-feds-engaging-in-illegal-confiscation-of-cattle-and-water-rights-of-county-property-owner/
Are you aware of the County Sheriff Project? If so, what are your thoughts? http://www.countysheriffproject.org/
What about the CSPOA? http://cspoa.org/
Alaskapopo
03-22-13, 17:39
Tell that to Sheriff Tony Demeo. Watch this 3 part video interview of him explaining his position and threatening to use force against Federal agents. http://politicalvelcraft.org/2011/10/19/nevada-sheriff-tony-demeo-stops-federal-agents-feds-engaging-in-illegal-confiscation-of-cattle-and-water-rights-of-county-property-owner/
Are you aware of the County Sheriff Project? If so, what are your thoughts? http://www.countysheriffproject.org/
What about the CSPOA? http://cspoa.org/
He can say what he wants but in the end he would lose that battle if he pushed it and wind up dead or in the federal pen.
My thoughts are to fight this battle legally and it appears we are winning on that front at least nationally. I also believe the courts will be where we need to spend most of our time and efforts.
Pat
He can say what he wants but in the end he would lose that battle if he pushed it and wind up dead or in the federal pen.
My thoughts are to fight this battle legally and it appears we are winning on that front at least nationally. I also believe the courts will be where we need to spend most of our time and efforts.
Pat
He did win the battle. You didn't watch the videos. I think you'd find it pretty interesting if you took the time to educate yourself about what happened rather than just sticking to your 1 dimensional argument.
Alaskapopo
03-22-13, 17:48
He did win the battle. You didn't watch the videos. I think you'd find it pretty interesting if you took the time to educate yourself about what happened rather than just sticking to your 1 dimensional argument.
He can't win the battle and no I did not watch it. I know the law and there is no way around it other than by breaking it. Basically declaring war on the US government which will not end well.
Pat
GeorgiaBoy
03-22-13, 17:51
He can't win the battle and no I did not watch it. I know the law and there is no way around it other than by breaking it. Basically declaring war on the US government which will not end well.
Pat
Yep, did not end well at all in 1865...
Several other Sheriff's have taken some interesting stands against the Feds including Wyoming Sheriff Dave Mattis and New Mexico Sheriff Benny House.
Alaskapopo
03-22-13, 18:07
Refusing to enforce federal laws is very doable but saying you will use force against federal agents not so doable. How many men does the Sheriff have that are willing to do federal time or be killed? I support Sheriffs, Chiefs etc saying they will not enforce federal law but using force against Federal agents that is simply lunacy and blustering talk.
Pat
Several other Sheriff's have taken some interesting stands against the Feds including Wyoming Sheriff Dave Mattis and New Mexico Sheriff Benny House.
What you are talking about is a State's Rights issue. This is a far cry from the notion of a Super Congress which is what Sen. Lee is proposing.
What you are talking about is a State's Rights issue. This is a far cry from the notion of a Super Congress which is what Sen. Lee is proposing.
My posts weren't relating to Senator Lee and his proposal, they were directed at Pat and his assertion:
True much like state laws saying they will arrest federal agents trying to enforce federal laws. Supremacy clause kicks in. Basically these are not laws they are statements.
Pat
Magic_Salad0892
03-22-13, 18:29
I don't believe that it's unconstitutional, seeing as how gun control is unconstitutional.
However this is a very thin line. But I'd rather have laws that make it harder for congress to pass laws, than laws that make it easier.
xjustintimex
03-22-13, 19:33
Federalism will never be the same thanks to the civil war. State rights on gun control will not stump federal law
Magic_Salad0892
03-22-13, 19:35
Federalism will never be the same thanks to the civil war. State rights on gun control will not stump federal law
Technically that's not true. It works both ways. If state's rights on gun control wouldn't trump federal law then NY wouldn't have been able to pass the SAFE act.
Alaskapopo
03-22-13, 20:41
Technically that's not true. It works both ways. If state's rights on gun control wouldn't trump federal law then NY wouldn't have been able to pass the SAFE act.
The Safe ACT is not a done deal in the courts.
Pat
If the republicans had any balls, they would offer a repeal of the Hughes amendment or the import ban as an amendment to UBC.
Get both.
xjustintimex
03-22-13, 21:07
Technically that's not true. It works both ways. If state's rights on gun control wouldn't trump federal law then NY wouldn't have been able to pass the SAFE act.
right, but it is not a done deal. No one said we don't do illegal things either, simply put.. it won't work in the long run.
FChen17213
03-22-13, 21:37
This is just a political statement. It wouldn't pass and would be unconstitutional. We have to follow the rules too. Although Feinstein, Bloomberg, and Cuomo don't believe in the Constitution, I would hope that we, as gun owners, do believe in the Constitution and will follow it. In addition, the 2nd Amendment should protect our right to bear arms and protect us from gun control. Unfortunately, it hasn't in many cases. If we really study the 2nd Amendment, I would say that the Gun Control Acts of 1934 and 1968 are unconstitutional. In addition, the 89 import ban and 86 Full Auto Ban are all unconstitutional. What sucks is that our courts don't agree.....due to politics I suspect.
If the republicans had any balls, they would offer a repeal of the Hughes amendment or the import ban as an amendment to UBC.
If you have a Republican Senator, then call him/her up and ask them to do this. To propose this amendment on ANY gun control that comes up.
And ask your House member to do the same (if amenable).
We should be playing the same game -- stick poison pill amendments on any of the GC stuff that comes up, the same way they do.
-
Not only is it a long shot, it is also unconstitutional. Article 1, Section 3 of the Constitution specifies that the VP has the power to break tie votes on bills in the Senate to pass a bill. This is a constitutional lock on a simple majority as the threshold to pass a bill.
The fact that Senator Lee does not understand this is a little scary.
This is why our side (and I don't mean Republicans) will never win. Those who truly support the Constitution won't do anything to subvert it (and I'm not finding fault). Our enemies aren't hampered by such concerns.
As a result we play a progressively losing game where things slip away bit by bit.
My thoughts are to fight this battle legally and it appears we are winning on that front at least nationally.
Pat
You have an unusual concept of winning. Winning is not a tie. Winning is not, "only loosing a little".
Winning is defeating your enemy to the point they are at the very least unwilling to fight any longer.
Then again if you consider winning to be when the roaches run into the dark closet when you turn the lights on, then yes, I suppose it does appear that we are winning.
This is why our side (and I don't mean Republicans) will never win. Those who truly support the Constitution won't do anything to subvert it (and I'm not finding fault). Our enemies aren't hampered by such concerns.
As a result we play a progressively losing game where things slip away bit by bit.
Yep... no offensive game what so ever. All defense. Kinda hard to win when you have no plan to score points.
This is why our side (and I don't mean Republicans) will never win. Those who truly support the Constitution won't do anything to subvert it (and I'm not finding fault). Our enemies aren't hampered by such concerns.
As a result we play a progressively losing game where things slip away bit by bit.
BS. Our side does it all the time. For example, did you know that the Founders NEVER intended the Bill of Rights to restrict the power of the states? That's right, it was a restriction only on the Federal government and any honest student of history knows it. Thus, a state could completely ban all firearms and The Framers would have thought the action constitutional, stupid but constitutional. Here is a quote from Madison in Federalist 45:
“ The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. ”
The Framers had no problem with individual states restricting free speech, establishing a religion, or confiscating guns and their document reflects that. They just did not want the feds to have this power. There are even hints of this in then 1st Amendment when it starts with, "Congress shall pass not law..." It specifically says "Congress" but our legal wizards have incorporated this to mean any governmental entity down to the level of a town hall meeting trying to have a prayer - brilliant :(.
Our side goes along with this unconstitutional notion of incorporating the BOR because we think it suits our pro-gun agenda. Never mind the fact that incorporation came about via a series of SCOTUS decisions about 90 years ago, and has been a major mechanism for the federal power grab that has eroded our liberty over the past century. Even worse, incorporation came with a price tag - that certain liberties in the BOR were not absolute.
Personally, I wish our side would stick to the Constitution as the Frames has indended- namely that the liberties listed in the BOR were absolute protections from the federal government and that state retain the right to curtail any of those liberties they see fit. After all, I could always move to TX if things got too crazy.
GeorgiaBoy
03-23-13, 00:02
BS. Our side does it all the time. For example, did you know that the Founders NEVER intended the Bill of Rights to restrict the power of the states? That's right it was a restriction only on the Federal government and any honest student of history knows it. Thus, a state could completely ban all firearms and The Framers would have thought the action constitutional, stupid but constitutional. Here is a quote from Madison in Federalist 45:
The Framers has no problem with individual states restricting free speech, establishing a religion, or confiscating guns and their document reflects that. They just did not want the feds to have this power. There are even hints of this in then 1st Amendment when it starts with, "Congress shall pass not law..." It specifically says "Congress" but our legal wizards have incorporated this to mean any governmental entity down to the level of a town hall meeting trying to have a prayer - brilliant :(.
Our side goes along with this unconstitutional notion of incorporating the BOR because we think it suits our pro-gun agenda. Never mind the fact that incorporation came about via a series of SCOTUS decisions about 90 years ago, and has been a major mechanism for the federal power grab that has eroded our liberty over the past century. Even worse, incorporation came with a price tag - that certain liberties in the BOR were not absolute.
Personally, I wish our side would stick to the Constitution as the Frames has indended- namely that the liberties listed in the BOR were absolute protections from the federal government and that state retain the right to curtail any of those liberties they see fit.
Dude... that was one of the best posts you have ever posted. Ever.
Not that I think states should be restricting those things (as the People in most states forbid it), but I think people often forget how much power the states were supposed to have in the sense of making their own rules as determined by the individual populaces.
Dude... that was one of the best posts you have ever posted. Ever.
Not that I think states should be restricting those things (as the People in most states forbid it), but I think people often forget how much power the states were supposed to have in the sense of making their own rules as determined by the individual populaces.
Thanks for the compliment.
People need to understand that incorporating the BOR was not part of the Framer's intent. It only came about when a progressive Court twisted the 14th Amendment beyond all recognition about 50 years after it was written.
Once this was accomplished, the Court was free to twist other parts of the Constitution to grow the federal government. Allowing federal firearms laws and expansive interpretations of the General Welfare Clause (as it applies to taxing/spending) are prime examples.
BS. Our side does it all the time. For example, did you know that the Founders NEVER intended the Bill of Rights to restrict the power of the states? That's right, it was a restriction only on the Federal government and any honest student of history knows it. Thus, a state could completely ban all firearms and The Framers would have thought the action constitutional, stupid but constitutional. Here is a quote from Madison in Federalist 45:
Yes, I knew that.
The Framers had no problem with individual states restricting free speech, establishing a religion, or confiscating guns and their document reflects that. They just did not want the feds to have this power. There are even hints of this in then 1st Amendment when it starts with, "Congress shall pass not law..." It specifically says "Congress" but our legal wizards have incorporated this to mean any governmental entity down to the level of a town hall meeting trying to have a prayer - brilliant :(.
Our side goes along with this unconstitutional notion of incorporating the BOR because we think it suits our pro-gun agenda. Never mind the fact that incorporation came about via a series of SCOTUS decisions about 90 years ago, and has been a major mechanism for the federal power grab that has eroded our liberty over the past century. Even worse, incorporation came with a price tag - that certain liberties in the BOR were not absolute.
Personally, I wish our side would stick to the Constitution as the Frames has indended- namely that the liberties listed in the BOR were absolute protections from the federal government and that state retain the right to curtail any of those liberties they see fit. After all, I could always move to TX if things got too crazy.
I think we got our signals crossed. By "our side" I meant people who actually understand and respect the Constitution and aren't willing to damage it to try and save it. I certainly didn't mean Republicans vs. Democrats or anything like that.
BS. Our side does it all the time. For example, did you know that the Founders NEVER intended the Bill of Rights to restrict the power of the states? That's right, it was a restriction only on the Federal government and any honest student of history knows it. Thus, a state could completely ban all firearms and The Framers would have thought the action constitutional, stupid but constitutional. Here is a quote from Madison in Federalist 45:
The Framers had no problem with individual states restricting free speech, establishing a religion, or confiscating guns and their document reflects that. They just did not want the feds to have this power. There are even hints of this in then 1st Amendment when it starts with, "Congress shall pass not law..." It specifically says "Congress" but our legal wizards have incorporated this to mean any governmental entity down to the level of a town hall meeting trying to have a prayer - brilliant :(.
Our side goes along with this unconstitutional notion of incorporating the BOR because we think it suits our pro-gun agenda. Never mind the fact that incorporation came about via a series of SCOTUS decisions about 90 years ago, and has been a major mechanism for the federal power grab that has eroded our liberty over the past century. Even worse, incorporation came with a price tag - that certain liberties in the BOR were not absolute.
Personally, I wish our side would stick to the Constitution as the Frames has indended- namely that the liberties listed in the BOR were absolute protections from the federal government and that state retain the right to curtail any of those liberties they see fit. After all, I could always move to TX if things got too crazy.
I completely agree with you. Of course, that would also mean that when state governments overstep their bounds and fail to heed the demands of their citizens (as in what Colorado just did), it would be perfectly legal for said state's citizens to rise up in armed revolt to overthrow that state government, without federal intervention.
Because, that's kind of exactly the type of thing the Framers would do. :)
Alaskapopo
03-23-13, 01:28
You have an unusual concept of winning. Winning is not a tie. Winning is not, "only loosing a little".
Winning is defeating your enemy to the point they are at the very least unwilling to fight any longer.
Then again if you consider winning to be when the roaches run into the dark closet when you turn the lights on, then yes, I suppose it does appear that we are winning.
We stopped the attacks at the national level that is winning. This will never be won under your terms because the other side will never give up. However its nice to be able to say I told you so to those who thought impending doom was coming a few short months ago.
Pat
Moose-Knuckle
03-23-13, 01:33
Yep, did not end well at all in 1865...
Thankfully our founders did not share your train of thought in 1776 . . .
Alaskapopo
03-23-13, 01:39
Thankfully our founders did not share your train of thought in 1776 . . .
Lots of things happened before they turned to violence. We are not even close. Most of the people on here talking about revolution would likely not do a damn thing if it came down to it. We all love our families and our freedom (from being dead or in prison). Basically lots of tough talk with not much to back it up.
Pat
I think we got our signals crossed. By "our side" I meant people who actually understand and respect the Constitution and aren't willing to damage it to try and save it. I certainly didn't mean Republicans vs. Democrats or anything like that.
Indeed we did get crossed since my post has nothing to do with either political party, liberals, or conservative. My post had everything to do with progressives who increasingly seem to occupy "our side."
Then again, my side may not be your side. For example, my side is just as horrified by the outcome of the Heller and McDonald decisions as any federal gun law. My side sees decisions such as Heller and McDonald as yet another federal over reach as the leviathan assumes more power. That is because my side looks to the original intent of Framers along with the actual text of the document. People who applaude decisions like Heller, McDonald, and Roe v Wade are progressives who would shread the Constitution and are definitely not on my side.
Don't get me wrong, I did not like the DC or Chicago gun bans. They were poorly conceived like most gun laws. My side simply understands as a historical fact that the Framers would see those bans as constitutional - stupid, but constitutional.
Hey, don't feel bad if you're not on my side. It sometimes gets lonely down here.
Lots of things happened before they turned to violence. We are not even close. Most of the people on here talking about revolution would likely not do a damn thing if it came down to it. We all love our families and our freedom (from being dead or in prison). Basically lots of tough talk with not much to back it up.
Pat
Speak for yourself my friend.
I completely agree with you. Of course, that would also mean that when state governments overstep their bounds and fail to heed the demands of their citizens (as in what Colorado just did), it would be perfectly legal for said state's citizens to rise up in armed revolt to overthrow that state government, without federal intervention.
Because, that's kind of exactly the type of thing the Framers would do. :)
Welcome to my side.
GeorgiaBoy
03-23-13, 01:56
Lots of things happened before they turned to violence. We are not even close. Most of the people on here talking about revolution would likely not do a damn thing if it came down to it. We all love our families and our freedom (from being dead or in prison). Basically lots of tough talk with not much to back it up.
Pat
Its the romanticism of revolution.
Truth be told, a true revolution has to cause real change and has to be supported by a large percent of the revolting population.
Essentially, even if 1 million Americans suddenly took up arms and revolted, they are doing nothing but committing a crime. Thats 0.3% of the entire population. Thats nothing. Even 10 million is an insignificant number.
The Civil War was a TRUE revolution with the country practically split in half with 1/3 of the total US population "revolting". And, it didn't turn out well. But it was probably for the best; considering what the South was fighting for.
However its nice to be able to say I told you so to those who thought impending doom was coming a few short months ago.
Pat
It's even nicer when you say it to the fools who thought said doom was "common sense" and a good idea. :D
Lots of things happened before they turned to violence. We are not even close. Most of the people on here talking about revolution would likely not do a damn thing if it came down to it. We all love our families and our freedom (from being dead or in prison). Basically lots of tough talk with not much to back it up.
Pat
The same could've been said of the Founder's in colonial times, until they went and did it. Never forget that gun confiscation is EXACTLY what started the American Revolution.
Are you saying that no one in America today could or would repeat their acts? Because if so, your grasp of what people who feel they've been backed into a corner are capable of doing would be exceedingly naive. Dismissing what is a potential prelude to civil unrest as "Basically lots of tough talk with not much to back it up." is pretty self-serving IMO.
Its the romanticism of revolution.
Truth be told, a true revolution has to cause real change and has to be supported by a large percent of the revolting population.
Essentially, even if 1 million Americans suddenly took up arms and revolted, they are doing nothing but committing a crime. Thats 0.3% of the entire population. Thats nothing. Even 10 million is an insignificant number.
The Civil War was a TRUE revolution with the country practically split in half with 1/3 of the total US population "revolting". And, it didn't turn out well. But it was probably for the best; considering what the South was fighting for.
By some accounts, only 20% of the colonists were actively resistant to the crown during the American Revolution (with another 25-30% supporting it at least in word, if not deed). Dedication and perseverance is what wins wars, not sheer numbers. It's only a crime when you lose. Simply studying history reveals that.
GeorgiaBoy
03-23-13, 02:12
By some accounts, only 20% of the colonists were actively resistant to the crown during the American Revolution (with another 25-30% supporting it at least in word, if not deed). Dedication and perseverance is what wins wars, not sheer numbers. It's only a crime when you lose. Simply studying history reveals that.
The general belief is that 1/3 supported, 1/3 dissented, and 1/3 didn't care. Some historians say up to 45% supported.
But that's not my point. My point is that you simply don't have a true "revolution" when only 0.3, 1%, or even 10% support it.
Some people are always going to be pissed about something, but that doesn't give them the authority to overturn the government every time they disagree. And this isn't just about gun rights, its revolution based on anything.
Alaskapopo
03-23-13, 02:13
The british did a lot more than confiscate weapons. They forced people to let soldiers live in their home and they had to provide for them. There was taxation without representation. Like I said we are not even close to that. You would perhaps have a handful of crazies willing to die but most would not stand with them.
http://history.howstuffworks.com/revolutionary-war/revolutionary-war-history1.htm
Its the romanticism of revolution.
Truth be told, a true revolution has to cause real change and has to be supported by a large percent of the revolting population.
Essentially, even if 1 million Americans suddenly took up arms and revolted, they are doing nothing but committing a crime. Thats 0.3% of the entire population. Thats nothing. Even 10 million is an insignificant number.
The Civil War was a TRUE revolution with the country practically split in half with 1/3 of the total US population "revolting". And, it didn't turn out well. But it was probably for the best; considering what the South was fighting for.
On our current trajectory, the revolution will come between 2030 and 2040. That is when our public debt will be over 120% of our GDP, Medicare bankrupt, and our currency deflated to the point of being unable to sustain basic public services. That means the 1/3 of our population who are completely dependent on public welfare will be left to fend for themselves in a society with 300 million + guns. That is not me being romantic - that is mathematical fact. It can only be changed by a cultural awakening that seems less likely to happen every year.
Alaskapopo
03-23-13, 02:22
On our current trajectory, the revolution will come between 2030 and 2040. That is when our public debt will be over 120% of our GDP, Medicare bankrupt, and our currency deflated to the point of being unable to sustain basic public services. That means the 1/3 of our population who are completely dependent on public welfare will be left to fend for themselves in a society with 300 million + guns. That is not me being romantic - that is mathematical fact. It can only be changed by a cultural awakening that seems less likely to happen every year.
All throughout our history we have always had people saying that the US was on the verge of collapse. Just like the guys holding up the cardboard signs saying the world is going to end tomorrow. Some how I think we are going to be ok just like we always have.
Pat
On our current trajectory, the revolution will come between 2030 and 2040.....
Agreed, unless there is a black swan event that speeds up the timeline.
On our current trajectory, the revolution will come between 2030 and 2040. That is when our public debt will be over 120% of our GDP, Medicare bankrupt, and our currency deflated to the point of being unable to sustain basic public services. That means the 1/3 of our population who are completely dependent on public welfare will be left to fend for themselves in a society with 300 million + guns. That is not me being romantic - that is mathematical fact. It can only be changed by a cultural awakening that seems less likely to happen every year.
I give it between 2020 and 2025.
xjustintimex
03-23-13, 02:29
Its the romanticism of revolution.
Truth be told, a true revolution has to cause real change and has to be supported by a large percent of the revolting population.
Essentially, even if 1 million Americans suddenly took up arms and revolted, they are doing nothing but committing a crime. Thats 0.3% of the entire population. Thats nothing. Even 10 million is an insignificant number.
The Civil War was a TRUE revolution with the country practically split in half with 1/3 of the total US population "revolting". And, it didn't turn out well. But it was probably for the best; considering what the South was fighting for.
American revolution was not supported by what I believe to be a majority. At best most historians claim 50% lets not forget all the propaganda exc that helped the tip off as well... and it was a much smaller percent that actually took action. I would say historically most overthrown governments have been from the minority.
Also the dec. of independence states all the reasons for revolution, and I would say the path looks very parallel, but definitely not equivalent to current times as Alaska popo said.
The general belief is that 1/3 supported, 1/3 dissented, and 1/3 didn't care. Some historians say up to 45% supported.
But that's not my point. My point is that you simply don't have a true "revolution" when only 0.3, 1%, or even 10% support it.
Some people are always going to be pissed about something, but that doesn't give them the authority to overturn the government every time they disagree. And this isn't just about gun rights, its revolution based on anything.
With a population of over 300 million, you'll never see even a third take up arms over anything. I doubt anyone could even imagine a scenario where 100 million people took up arms in revolt. That would nearly equal all the conflict deaths of the entire world for the past 150 years. That doesn't mean one is impossible, even if it is unlikely. We have a total active and reserve force of about 2.3 million troops. We have around 800,000 law enforcement officers. There are 4 million NRA members alone, which probably make up about 2% of the total gun owners in America. 10% of the gun owners in America would be 15 million. If even 2.5% of the total population took up arms against the government, the government would fall, period. Nothing we're capable of producing as a measure of the GDP would stem that tide in time. The population would simply not have the will to use force against itself, if the ideology behind the revolution crossed all socioeconomic and geographical boundaries.
The british did a lot more than confiscate weapons. They forced people to let soldiers live in their home and they had to provide for them. There was taxation without representation. Like I said we are not even close to that. You would perhaps have a handful of crazies willing to die but most would not stand with them.
http://history.howstuffworks.com/revolutionary-war/revolutionary-war-history1.htm
I would agree with you, were it not for the dawn of the information age. We have an unprecedented level of access to history and communications that upset the traditional models. We know what gun confiscation leads to, and we will not be swayed by hollow promises to stop or well intentioned but foolish "safety" policies. I think we're still quite a ways away myself. There are many remedies that must be exhausted first. But I don't think we're quite as far from it as you do.
All throughout our history we have always had people saying that the US was on the verge of collapse. Just like the guys holding up the cardboard signs saying the world is going to end tomorrow. Some how I think we are going to be ok just like we always have.
Pat
I certainly hope you're right, but I don't share your optimism. :(
Agreed, unless there is a black swan event that speeds up the timeline.
A global pandemic should do the trick.
This is why our side (and I don't mean Republicans) will never win. Those who truly support the Constitution won't do anything to subvert it (and I'm not finding fault). Our enemies aren't hampered by such concerns.
As a result we play a progressively losing game where things slip away bit by bit.
BS. Our side does it all the time. For example, did you know that the Founders NEVER intended the Bill of Rights to restrict the power of the states? That's right, it was a restriction only on the Federal government and any honest student of history knows it. Thus, a state could completely ban all firearms and The Framers would have thought the action constitutional, stupid but constitutional. Here is a quote from Madison in Federalist 45:
The Framers had no problem with individual states restricting free speech, establishing a religion, or confiscating guns and their document reflects that. They just did not want the feds to have this power. There are even hints of this in then 1st Amendment when it starts with, "Congress shall pass not law..." It specifically says "Congress" but our legal wizards have incorporated this to mean any governmental entity down to the level of a town hall meeting trying to have a prayer - brilliant :(.
Our side goes along with this unconstitutional notion of incorporating the BOR because we think it suits our pro-gun agenda. Never mind the fact that incorporation came about via a series of SCOTUS decisions about 90 years ago, and has been a major mechanism for the federal power grab that has eroded our liberty over the past century. Even worse, incorporation came with a price tag - that certain liberties in the BOR were not absolute.
Personally, I wish our side would stick to the Constitution as the Frames has indended- namely that the liberties listed in the BOR were absolute protections from the federal government and that state retain the right to curtail any of those liberties they see fit. After all, I could always move to TX if things got too crazy.
Thanks for the compliment.
People need to understand that incorporating the BOR was not part of the Framer's intent. It only came about when a progressive Court twisted the 14th Amendment beyond all recognition about 50 years after it was written.
Once this was accomplished, the Court was free to twist other parts of the Constitution to grow the federal government. Allowing federal firearms laws and expansive interpretations of the General Welfare Clause (as it applies to taxing/spending) are prime examples.
Indeed we did get crossed since my post has nothing to do with either political party, liberals, or conservative. My post had everything to do with progressives who increasingly seem to occupy "our side."
Then again, my side may not be your side. For example, my side is just as horrified by the outcome of the Heller and McDonald decisions as any federal gun law. My side sees decisions such as Heller and McDonald as yet another federal over reach as the leviathan assumes more power. That is because my side looks to the original intent of Framers along with the actual text of the document. People who applaude decisions like Heller, McDonald, and Roe v Wade are progressives who would shread the Constitution and are definitely not on my side.
Don't get me wrong, I did not like the DC or Chicago gun bans. They were poorly conceived like most gun laws. My side simply understands as a historical fact that the Framers would see those bans as constitutional - stupid, but constitutional.
Hey, don't feel bad if you're not on my side. It sometimes gets lonely down here.
While I agree with this in part, the framers and their generation in general saw most rights as self evident and would never conceive of most federal nor state laws being necessary. Just out of the Revolutionary War, how many people if polled do you think would support the right to keep and bear arms? Now this generation's support of it is laughable.
I find it hilarious that Alexander Hamilton with his ideas of strong national government and support of many federal power grabs, on the other hand claimed the BoR was an unnecessary part of the US Constitution.
"Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing, and as they retain every thing, they have no need of particular reservations."
Surely he wasn't naive enough to assume that a government he had helped gain so much authority over its people would ever abuse its power. What if he would've been right and the BoR would've never been incorporated and there was no basis of law for the rights it granted? Now we have such a litigious society that not only do too many people feel "there should be a law against that!" but many times we've needed other laws to keep authoritarians from trampling our natural rights.
What is truly scary to me is what happens far too often such as in the SC decisions of Heller, McDonald, etc. is one side of the SC is diametrically opposed to the other in their interpretation of law. Either side can be activist no doubt but we have our fate and rights sometimes depending on the opinion of one swing justice that can then set legal precedence for years and generations to come. If Heller would've been struck down, how long would that precedent have been set and how long before the SC would hear a case of that magnitude again?
I personally believe too much importance is placed on legal precedence and common law because it set's a tone for the interpretation of law and that nothing is absolute. While I agree that not every right is absolute, so much activism and amendments to the Constitution have watered down it's power in too many areas while other amendments have granted it too much power.
There are certain rights that just by their very nature should never, ever be challenged so just be allowing them to be challenged, the SC and federal courts are accepting their interpretation to stand. In other words, every so many years, it seems they evaluate whether or not at that current time if laws are deemed acceptable or not. That should not be the case!
Take slavery for example. Why did a constitutional amendment need to be passed to abolish it when all the SC had to do was rule that not only is freedom an inalienable natural right but also the BoR already forbid it?
The Supremacy Clause...Federalists like Hamilton and Republicans like Madison agreed!
Now it seems the federal government can pick and choose when their authority has been superseded (such as the case of illegal immigration)...
Or as in the case of the 2nd Amendment choose to ignore when states overstep the bounds guaranteed to their citizens by the BoR.
It would appear Sensei thinks Nullification should remain legal but the SC and years of common law say it is not. Sometimes it suits our own personal opinions and sometimes it doesn't. While I agree that the federal government has overreached its powers on many, many cases (such obvious ones as the Patriot Act and Obama Care with many more I can't recall) I can't imagine how fragmented and globally impotent this country would be as a whole with so many states passing contradictory rights at will. We would have basically 50 countries within a country and we think traveling between them now means we need a constitutional law degree :)
ETA:
That being said, I think the vast overreach of the federal government in the past century is by far much more devastating than any state laws being passed. However, it makes me very uncomfortable about the anti-gun laws in the Northeast since the 1990s, and that's the point I was trying to get across about discomfort I have with state's rights vs supremacy. It seems to be spreading to the West with states like Colorado embracing gun control. What states will we have left to run to if we don't have a way to stop it?
Alaskapopo
03-23-13, 15:48
I believe any state or local government should never be allowed to restrict freedoms more than the Federal government. The argument you can always move becomes a moot point if said state government made it illegal to leave their state without travel permits etc. While I believe in more local control for social issues I also believe in an ideal world the Federal government should be a watch dog for its citizens making sure their civil rights are not violated much like blacks had their rights violated in the south with so called separate but equal laws. No local government should be able to restrict their citizens rights more than the bill of rights establishes.
Pat
An interesting PM from Train of Abuses on the topic. Since he's not an LEO he can't post in GD, he doesn't have 200 posts yet.
www.nullificationfaq.com
The thread about Mike Lee's amendment is explicitly referencing nullification now with the last post I read, even referencing Madison. If you have a few mins to read this over you will be very surprised at how the conventional wisdom from the media/historians is just as wrong about nullification as they are about the second amendment.
Sensei made some good points about how the constitution only applied to the fed govt - but one thing he did not add is that the supreme court was not supposed to be the final arbiter of the constitution and the only ones who can interpret it. Whether it was Wisconsin nullifying the Fugitive Slave Act - which the Supreme Court was furious about in a 1859 ruling - or the New England states nullifying a proposed draft, or South Carolina nullifying tariffs, nullification can and has been done as advocated by Jefferson and Madison.
The Supreme Court is not the final arbiter of the constitution, no matter what sort of power it has pretended to give itself. The same court ruled that Japanese could be rounded up and put in camps - how on earth is that even close to being constitutional?
Alaskapopo
03-23-13, 16:54
An interesting PM from Train of Abuses on the topic. Since he's not an LEO he can't post in GD, he doesn't have 200 posts yet.
Our nation has evolved and while maybe perhaps when things were first drafted the supreme court was not set up as the final arbitrator. The fact is they are now based on how our nation and goverment has evolved and frankly its a good system of checks and balances.
Pat
Our nation has evolved and while maybe perhaps when things were first drafted the supreme court was not set up as the final arbitrator. The fact is they are now based on how our nation and goverment has evolved and frankly its a good system of checks and balances.
Pat
I don't call SCOTUS not addressing tribal sovereign immunity a good system of checks and balances. Indians can damn near kill people with impunity and SCOTUS refuses to hear court cases related to the fact.
Alaskapopo
03-23-13, 19:04
I don't call SCOTUS not addressing tribal sovereign immunity a good system of checks and balances. Indians can damn near kill people with impunity and SCOTUS refuses to hear court cases related to the fact.
That may have something to do with Tribes being governed under treatys witht he US government. Which I agree at this point we should do away with reservations etc. They retain their land but they follow the laws everyone else does.
Pat
Moose-Knuckle
03-25-13, 01:58
Lots of things happened before they turned to violence.
A very small percentage of the colonists supported the Revolution against the greatest military power of the day and the catalyst was taxation without representation. You want to take a stab at what the likes of Jefferson would say about the taxation of We the People today?
We are not even close.
The air is so think you can cut with with a plastic spork.
Most of the people on here talking about revolution would likely not do a damn thing if it came down to it.
Basically lots of tough talk with not much to back it up.
I cannot even begin to tell how humorous I find these two gems after your "civilians" piss down their leg comment. You'll never live gonna that one down. :lol:
We all love our families and our freedom (from being dead or in prison).
And because of that very love for our families and our freedom there are those of us who would choose to die on our feet rather than live just a little while longer on our knees.
Alaskapopo
03-25-13, 02:24
A very small percentage of the colonists supported the Revolution against the greatest military power of the day and the catalyst was taxation without representation. You want to take a stab at what the likes of Jefferson would say about the taxation of We the People today?
The air is so think you can cut with with a plastic spork.
I cannot even begin to tell how humorous I find these two gems after your "civilians" piss down their leg comment. You'll never live gonna that one down. :lol:
And because of that very love for our families and our freedom there are those of us who would choose to die on our feet rather than live just a little while longer on our knees.
That comment was the truth and no the air is not nearly as thick as you think outside of the militia club houses in the real world.
Pat
Moose-Knuckle
03-25-13, 03:24
That comment was the truth and no the air is not nearly as thick as you think outside of the militia club houses in the real world.
Pat
It's only the truth in your head.
And the air is a lot thicker outside here in the real world far from your utopian station house in AK.
Alaskapopo
03-25-13, 03:38
It's only the truth in your head.
And the air is a lot thicker outside here in the real world far from your utopian station house in AK.
Sure that is why riots and breaking out all over the country. :rolleyes:
Great post and you make a valid point. Ultimately the Founding Fathers were wary of a centralized government that was too powerful and that matters which truly affect the people should be decided at the local level where it had the most impact. At least that is my reading into it.
BS. Our side does it all the time. For example, did you know that the Founders NEVER intended the Bill of Rights to restrict the power of the states? That's right, it was a restriction only on the Federal government and any honest student of history knows it. Thus, a state could completely ban all firearms and The Framers would have thought the action constitutional, stupid but constitutional. Here is a quote from Madison in Federalist 45:
The Framers had no problem with individual states restricting free speech, establishing a religion, or confiscating guns and their document reflects that. They just did not want the feds to have this power. There are even hints of this in then 1st Amendment when it starts with, "Congress shall pass not law..." It specifically says "Congress" but our legal wizards have incorporated this to mean any governmental entity down to the level of a town hall meeting trying to have a prayer - brilliant :(.
Our side goes along with this unconstitutional notion of incorporating the BOR because we think it suits our pro-gun agenda. Never mind the fact that incorporation came about via a series of SCOTUS decisions about 90 years ago, and has been a major mechanism for the federal power grab that has eroded our liberty over the past century. Even worse, incorporation came with a price tag - that certain liberties in the BOR were not absolute.
Personally, I wish our side would stick to the Constitution as the Frames has indended- namely that the liberties listed in the BOR were absolute protections from the federal government and that state retain the right to curtail any of those liberties they see fit. After all, I could always move to TX if things got too crazy.
I would love to hear what you "think" the south was fighting for as opposed to what they were really fighting for.
Its the romanticism of revolution.
Truth be told, a true revolution has to cause real change and has to be supported by a large percent of the revolting population.
Essentially, even if 1 million Americans suddenly took up arms and revolted, they are doing nothing but committing a crime. Thats 0.3% of the entire population. Thats nothing. Even 10 million is an insignificant number.
The Civil War was a TRUE revolution with the country practically split in half with 1/3 of the total US population "revolting". And, it didn't turn out well. But it was probably for the best; considering what the South was fighting for.
I think that everyone needs to take a close look at what is happening in Cypress. If you think we are immune, I would think again. Europe was in a complete panic and the situation still isn't 100% resolved.
Until we truly do something all we are doing with these bogus budgets and nonsense is to kick the can further down the road. If we don't tighten the belt now and fix our problems you will indeed see violence.
The minute those checks stop flowing to the Obamaites we will see them take to the streets. All of our politicians with a few exceptions are complicit.
That comment was the truth and no the air is not nearly as thick as you think outside of the militia club houses in the real world.
Pat
You live in Alaska! How would you know what's going on in the lower 48? :confused:
Sure that is why riots and breaking out all over the country. :rolleyes:
There are riots happening almost daily in some form or another. They simply don't get any airplay until someone gets killed or it impacts someone important. :(
GeorgiaBoy
03-25-13, 11:10
I would love to hear what you "think" the south was fighting for as opposed to what they were really fighting for.
As you already seem confident in what they "were really fighting for", I will pass.
brickboy240
03-25-13, 14:56
The South was fighting for states rights, trade issues and the freedom to buy and sell with whomever they wanted.
Many of the same issues that drove the original 13 colonies to revolt against the British.
Why is one uprising seen as "patriotic" and the other seen as an abomination?
Robert E. Lee did not own slaves. Neither did most of the regular Confederate army.
General Grant owned slaves up until the Emancipation Proclamation was signed into law.
Grant's troops treated Southern people much like the Nazis did the Polish in 1939. Burning and destroying everything in their past and committing atrocities against regular citizens. The Southern army was seen as criminals and rogues while the Union Army was sen as "liberators" and Grant's mug gets put on our currency.
Strange how that all ended up....isn't it?
-brickboy240
The South was fighting for states rights, trade issues and the freedom to buy and sell with whomever they wanted.
Many of the same issues that drove the original 13 colonies to revolt against the British.
Why is one uprising seen as "patriotic" and the other seen as an abomination?
Robert E. Lee did not own slaves. Neither did most of the regular Confederate army.
General Grant owned slaves up until the Emancipation Proclamation was signed into law.
Grant's troops treated Southern people much like the Nazis did the Polish in 1939. Burning and destroying everything in their past and committing atrocities against regular citizens. The Southern army was seen as criminals and rogues while the Union Army was sen as "liberators" and Grant's mug gets put on our currency.
Strange how that all ended up....isn't it?
-brickboy240
The victor ALWAYS writes the official history. ;)
GeorgiaBoy
03-25-13, 16:26
The reasons why the South seceded are no mystery, and there is no and never has been any conspiracy.
To believe otherwise is extremely intellectually dishonest, especially if is is attempted to somewhat rationalize the South's reasons for seceding, in an attempt to compare it to the original American Revolution.
The South was fighting for states rights, trade issues and the freedom to buy and sell with whomever they wanted.
Many of the same issues that drove the original 13 colonies to revolt against the British.
Why is one uprising seen as "patriotic" and the other seen as an abomination?
Robert E. Lee did not own slaves. Neither did most of the regular Confederate army.
General Grant owned slaves up until the Emancipation Proclamation was signed into law.
Grant's troops treated Southern people much like the Nazis did the Polish in 1939. Burning and destroying everything in their past and committing atrocities against regular citizens. The Southern army was seen as criminals and rogues while the Union Army was sen as "liberators" and Grant's mug gets put on our currency.
Strange how that all ended up....isn't it?
-brickboy240
Funny, I just talked to some of my family about this who had ancestors that passed down a journal of the atrocities against them by the Union during the Civil War. Apparently some southerners of a small Alabama town stole some Union soldiers' horses and that erupted into a gun battle with a few Union soldiers dying. As a consequence, most of the town and surrounding area was literally starved to death. After the war was over, a woman (one of my ancestors) was found with her three children barely surviving on boiled grass for over two years. That was their only meal for two years and they were with no salt or seasoning because salt had been choked off as well.
I'm sure those Union soldiers that starved the civilians were just "following orders."
Questioning the propaganda in history texts is not conspiratorial.
brickboy240
03-25-13, 17:10
I agree.
I grew up hearing stories passed down from my Louisiana relatives about how the Union soldiers treated them during the Civil War. Stories about them just riding up to houses and walking in and taking whatever they wanted, rapes, random beatings on the streets of people walking by, burning of stores and barns with no warnings or concern. What was basically general thuggery.
How is that any different than how Hitler or Stalin treated their enemies?
I am sure this was not every Union soldier but it happened enough for those that experienced it to remember and pass down the stories.
One person's "freedom fighter" or "soldier there to preserve the union" is another's basic trespasser or criminal when you get down to it.
-brickboy240
Correct. It's not a mystery. It was a states' rights issue. The underlying root of that was slavery, trade and self determination. Remember that when our country was founded slavery was alive and well and unless I am mistaken, the constitution did not apply to slaves.
So I am not saying that I agree with slavery in any means, but ultimately the southern states' felt that they were correct.
The reasons why the South seceded are no mystery, and there is no and never has been any conspiracy.
To believe otherwise is extremely intellectually dishonest, especially if is is attempted to somewhat rationalize the South's reasons for seceding, in an attempt to compare it to the original American Revolution.
xjustintimex
03-25-13, 22:27
Correct. It's not a mystery. It was a states' rights issue. The underlying root of that was slavery, trade and self determination. Remember that when our country was founded slavery was alive and well and unless I am mistaken, the constitution did not apply to slaves.
So I am not saying that I agree with slavery in any means, but ultimately the southern states' felt that they were correct.
this is truth.
GeorgiaBoy
03-25-13, 22:50
Correct. It's not a mystery. It was a states' rights issue. The underlying root of that was slavery, trade and self determination. Remember that when our country was founded slavery was alive and well and unless I am mistaken, the constitution did not apply to slaves.
So I am not saying that I agree with slavery in any means, but ultimately the southern states' felt that they were correct.
Not sure you were trying to bait me when you clearly know the correct answer.
The south was fighting the states' rights issue for the wrong reasons. Plain and simple. My point is, to compare their fight to the American revolution is simply wrong; the issues weren't the same. Autonomy and state/colony rights were important factors in both revolutions, but the deeper reasons behind them were not. The south was fighting for its economic vitality which was deeply rooted in slave labor. Watering it down to simply "states rights" try's to undermine the true cause while making it appear to be another, but it doesn't hide the truth.
Many southerns were not directly fighting for slavery, and genuinely thought they were fighting for their rights rather than the rights of plantain owners and their slaves. That they were fighting for their nation's freedom. Yet, it was the rich plantation owners and politicians that were actually the reason the war was occurring, and it primarily was occurring because of the issue of slavery and the pro-abolitionst and industrial North.
Put short, it is distasteful to compare the two wars, and pretend that the South wasn't fighting for slavery.
"Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth." - Alexander Stephens, VP of the Confederacy, Cornerstone Speech in Savannah in March 1861.
Notice my argument never said anything about comparisons to the American Revolution. It's easy to look back in time and say xxxx was wrong, but the fact is at the time they were fighting for what they thought were the right reasons.
And let's not forget that the Union side also has a lot of dirty stuff to answer for. Bottom line is that war is shitty and seldom is kind to those who lost.
Not sure you were trying to bait me when you clearly know the correct answer.
The south was fighting the states' rights issue for the wrong reasons. Plain and simple. My point is, to compare their fight to the American revolution is simply wrong; the issues weren't the same. Autonomy and state/colony rights were important factors in both revolutions, but the deeper reasons behind them were not. The south was fighting for its economic vitality which was deeply rooted in slave labor. Watering it down to simply "states rights" try's to undermine the true cause while making it appear to be another, but it doesn't hide the truth.
Many southerns were not directly fighting for slavery, and genuinely thought they were fighting for their rights rather than the rights of plantain owners and their slaves. That they were fighting for their nation's freedom. Yet, it was the rich plantation owners and politicians that were actually the reason the war was occurring, and it primarily was occurring because of the issue of slavery and the pro-abolitionst and industrial North.
Put short, it is distasteful to compare the two wars, and pretend that the South wasn't fighting for slavery.
"Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth." - Alexander Stephens, VP of the Confederacy, Cornerstone Speech in Savannah in March 1861.
Larry Vickers
03-26-13, 12:16
Maybe it's just me but nothing, I mean nothing, makes me want hurl more than an argument over the Civil War
To say I couldn't give a rat's ass is overstating the situation greatly
GeorgiaBoy
03-26-13, 12:21
Maybe it's just me but nothing, I mean nothing, makes me want hurl more than an argument over the Civil War
To say I couldn't give a rat's ass is overstating the situation greatly
You don't like history?
Or is it because of the feelings and emotions concerning the Civil War?
I agree.
I grew up hearing stories passed down from my Louisiana relatives about how the Union soldiers treated them during the Civil War. Stories about them just riding up to houses and walking in and taking whatever they wanted, rapes, random beatings on the streets of people walking by, burning of stores and barns with no warnings or concern. What was basically general thuggery.
How is that any different than how Hitler or Stalin treated their enemies?
I am sure this was not every Union soldier but it happened enough for those that experienced it to remember and pass down the stories.
One person's "freedom fighter" or "soldier there to preserve the union" is another's basic trespasser or criminal when you get down to it.
-brickboy240
Wanna talk about atrocities. Look up General William Tecumseh Sherman's March to the Sea Campaign from Atlanta to Savannah. Makes me wonder if the Wehrmacht was taking notes on Sherman's style for the upcoming Operation Barbarossa.
-Jax
Larry Vickers
03-26-13, 14:30
I love military history - specifically WW II - but the whole Civil War passion has always been lost on me
I could not possibly care less about it; even if I tried
Larry,
I am a intensely fascinated w/any and all things WW2. Especially the Russian Front and ETO yet for me there has been a resurgence in my interest about the Civil War. I honestly think the political climate over the last few years spawned that.
Partly and I bet alot of other people who have the Mason-Dixon line north of them will agree with me is that part of that passion is to clarify WHY the war was fought.
Ask almost anyone when the Civil War was fought and think they'll say 1861-1865? No, ask that same person why it was fought. Answer, slavery and nothing else.
Was slavery right? No but I think the reason needs to be given to the public as to why it happened....States rights. Something very relevant to today. Just my two pennies.
-Jax
Partly and I bet alot of other people who have the Mason-Dixon line north of them will agree with me is that part of that passion is to clarify WHY the war was fought.
Ask almost anyone when the Civil War was fought and think they'll say 1861-1865? No, ask that same person why it was fought. Answer, slavery and nothing else.
Was slavery right? No but I think the reason needs to be given to the public as to why it happened....States rights. Something very relevant to today. Just my two pennies.
-Jax
In the eyes of some of these gun banners and leftist social engineers, we're no better than slave owners! :mad:
GeorgiaBoy
03-26-13, 16:05
Was slavery right? No but I think the reason needs to be given to the public as to why it happened....States rights. Something very relevant to today. Just my two pennies.
-Jax
The importance is realizing what rights the states' wanted. They wanted autonomy and freedom from Northern influences (which had a greater population and greater say the the affairs of the nation). They wanted the freedom to be able to retain slavery, they felt it was part of states' rights. That is proven through quotes by prominent confederate politicians and the Confederate constitution.
Yes, the South was fighting for state rights and freedom from centralized power, but it was for the wrong reasons; not comparable to the same reasons of the American Revolution.
CarlosDJackal
03-26-13, 16:07
Moot and foolish. Bills like this are nothing more than pandering to the constituents.
Or is he just trying to make a point?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.