Gun Control

[TheHouseAlwaysWins]

Efforts were being made to do that, but where in the South do you see a New York City?

So there are tons of cities in the south that are relevant. I live near some of these cities and I know for a fact they are or used to be relevant in the late 1800's/early 1900's

https://www.businessinsider.com/us-news-best-places-to-live-in-the-south-2016-3#1-austin-texas-24

 

[Crni Vuk]

There was no real try in the South to abbolish slavery slowly before the civil war started. Infact the elites of the South actually feared to give that up and had very crazy ideas to expand slavery in to new regions as they not only saw it as their way of life but also the largest basis for their wealth and power. Anyone who's intersted in it, can read about the golden circle and the westward expansion. The South had no real interest in ending slavery any time soon and they tried everything in their power to expand it.

We fought a war when the North tried to make us stop using Slaves because they were moving towards industrialization and the South was not. The war was based on slavery but parties behind the scene also made it about something else. Individual states wanted the right to govern how their territory would be changed. Some things impacted other states more than the rest. Namely slavery was a primary economical tool of the South, not the North, so of course they wanted to get rid of it. Why does this matter?

You might be right, I am not dennying that fact, honestly I actually wouldn't be surprised if the US society would end up in a new civil war at some point if the wealth gab is continuing to increase and tensions in society are going to grow, I mean a poor and frustrated population armed to the teeth and in complete distrust to their government believing it to be corrupt? Oh well. What's the worst that could happen. Right? However, there are arguments for either case, peacefull transitions or viollent changes. Let us say in 60 years some armed militand group backed up by some parts of the military, now tries a coup in the US after decades of very harsh social instabilities which disrupted most institutions so those groups now seek to overthrow the government, sending the US in a bloody conflict taking years to solve - not unlike what you see in some South American states these days, like Colombia. And after the conflict is over, the government decides to seize most weapons and the population and the fighting groups agree due to beeing weary of all the fighting. Who knows?

We can find examples like the abolishing of slavery that has lead to one of the most devastating conflicts in US history, but we can also find examples which havn't lead to civil wars, but which also polarized the nation heavily.

Because the founding of our country in 1776 led us to a never ending series of conflicts against Empires that were around a hell of a lot longer than ours. We struggled to survive and fought amongst ourselves on how best to do that, until we started killing each other. One side started to get too much power and the other side was afraid it was Britain all over again. We fought a Civil War based on abolishing slavery AND CIVIL LIBERTY. That last part is the key. Civil Liberty is what the GUN CONTROL debate is about today, based on similar values, and concepts established and fought over 200 + years ago.

The emphasis here is on 'today', just as you correctly said, again I can only agree with you, in todays society this most probably won't happen. But every society and nation is a living and breathing thing which is constantly evolving as new generations emerge with new values, ideas and concepts The people in 50 or 60 years might have a completely different idea on the same values. That's how the US society has progressed and I am sure when the founding fathers created this nation and the constitution they had a slightly different idea about it than people today. In 1720 liberty sure meant something different to the people than it did in 1860 or 2018. I mean take the Athens, 2500 years ago they had a democracy where every citizen had the right to vote and assume positions of power, but this was only true for like 30% of the population, namely men over the age of 18 which had citizenship if I remember correctly (Only adult male Athenian citizens who had completed their military training as ephebes had the right to vote in Athens.). A concept like that, would be unthinkable today in our modern societies, and not match our popular definition of democracy.

So you go to Georgia and tell them to stop using these such-and-such magazines because you are from the North and you know better. Go right the fuck ahead. It will never happen. If Georgia does not agree to it. Fuck the FEDERAL government and their laws anyway. Weed is legal in California which is making billions of dollars, but the Feds come in and seize their shit. Is that good for CALIFORNIA or WASHINGTON D.C?

But this is the point. I am not. No one should go and 'tell' them to give up anything. That's not what I am trying to say here. Again, if this change happens, then it will happen organically, over time, if the people are ready and willing to accept it on their own. Just as how they accepted equal rights for minorites and gay marriage. Who knows if it will happen or not, I am not saying that it has to happen. It might very well be that school shootings and mass shootings will continue to happen in the US in the 22th century while the rest of humanity is flying trough space like in Star Trek dealing with the Ferengi and Klingons. Who knows?

All I am saying is, changes can happen, not that they have to happen.

 

[TorontoReign]

There was no real try in the South to abbolish slavery slowly before the civil war started. Infact the elites of the South actually feared to give that up and had very crazy ideas to expand slavery in to new regions as they not only saw it as their way of life but also the largest basis for their wealth and power. Anyone who's intersted in it, can read about the golden circle and the westward expansion. The South had no real interest in ending slavery any time soon and they tried everything in their power to expand it.



You might be right, I am not dennying that fact, honestly I actually wouldn't be surprised if the US society would end up in a new civil war at some point if the wealth gab is continuing to increase and tensions in society are going to grow, I mean a poor and frustrated population armed to the teeth and in complete distrust to their government believing it to be corrupt? Oh well. What's the worst that could happen. Right? However, there are arguments for either case, peacefull transitions or viollent changes. Let us say in 60 years some armed militand group backed up by some parts of the military, now tries a coup in the US after decades of very harsh social instabilities which disrupted most institutions so those groups now seek to overthrow the government, sending the US in a bloody conflict taking years to solve - not unlike what you see in some South American states these days, like Colombia. And after the conflict is over, the government decides to seize most weapons and the population and the fighting groups agree due to beeing weary of all the fighting. Who knows?

We can find examples like the abolishing of slavery that has lead to one of the most devastating conflicts in US history, but we can also find examples which havn't lead to civil wars, but which also polarized the nation heavily.



All I am saying is, changes can happen, not that they have to happen.

This is such a long post it wears me out attempting to respond to all the points since it is something I am interested in. Mainly because breaking down individual quotes hurts my dyslexic stupid brain. Bear with me.

http://www.compromise-of-1850.org/effects-significance/

That was the initial steps to reach a compromise.

The Constitution and Slavery
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
— Declaration of Independence, 1776

Thomas Jefferson presented the Declaration of Independence to the Continental Congress in 1776. (Wikimedia Commons)

When the American colonies broke from England, the Continental Congress asked Thomas Jefferson to write the Declaration of Independence. In the declaration, Jefferson expressed American grievances and explained why the colonists were breaking away. His words proclaimed America’s ideals of freedom and equality, which still resonate throughout the world.

Yet at the time these words were written, more than 500,000 black Americans were slaves. Jefferson himself owned more than 100. Slaves accounted for about one-fifth of the population in the American colonies. Most of them lived in the Southern colonies, where slaves made up 40 percent of the population.

Many colonists, even slave holders, hated slavery. Jefferson called it a “hideous blot” on America. George Washington, who owned hundreds of slaves, denounced it as “repugnant.” James Mason, a Virginia slave owner, condemned it as “evil.”

But even though many of them decried it, Southern colonists relied on slavery. The Southern colonies were among the richest in America. Their cash crops of tobacco, indigo, and rice depended on slave labor. They weren’t going to give it up.

The first U.S. national government began under the Articles of Confederation, adopted in 1781. This document said nothing about slavery. It left the power to regulate slavery, as well as most powers, to the individual states. After their experience with the British, the colonists distrusted a strong central government. The new national government consisted solely of a Congress in which each state had one vote.

With little power to execute its laws or collect taxes, the new government proved ineffective. In May 1787, 55 delegates from 12 states met in Philadelphia. (Rhode Island refused to send a delegation.) Their goal was to revise the Articles of Confederation. Meeting in secret sessions, they quickly changed their goal. They would write a new Constitution. The outline of the new government was soon agreed to. It would have three branches — executive, judiciary, and a two-house legislature.

A dispute arose over the legislative branch. States with large populations wanted representation in both houses of the legislature to be based on population. States with small populations wanted each state to have the same number of representatives, like under the Articles of Confederation. This argument carried on for two months. In the end, the delegates agreed to the “Great Compromise.” One branch, the House of Representatives, would be based on population. The other, the Senate, would have two members from each state.

Part of this compromise included an issue that split the convention on North–South lines. The issue was: Should slaves count as part of the population? Under the proposed Constitution, population would ultimately determine three matters:

(1) How many members each state would have in the House of Representatives.
(2) How many electoral votes each state would have in presidential elections.
(3) The amount each state would pay in direct taxes to the federal government.

In 1787 after months of debate, delegates signed the new Constitution of the United States. (Wikimedia Commons)

Only the Southern states had large numbers of slaves. Counting them as part of the population would greatly increase the South’s political power, but it would also mean paying higher taxes. This was a price the Southern states were willing to pay. They argued in favor of counting slaves. Northern states disagreed. The delegates compromised. Each slave would count as three-fifths of a person.

Following this compromise, another controversy erupted: What should be done about the slave trade, the importing of new slaves into the United States? Ten states had already outlawed it. Many delegates heatedly denounced it. But the three states that allowed it — Georgia and the two Carolinas — threatened to leave the convention if the trade were banned. A special committee worked out another compromise: Congress would have the power to ban the slave trade, but not until 1800. The convention voted to extend the date to 1808.

But the NORTH DID NOT GIVE A FUCK ABOUT SLAVERY. They wanted VOTES when the slaves won their fucking freedom. This is where you get history written by the victors. Many in the South did not support slavery, but ended up fighting a war because of federal overreach. This is why assholes like Jesse James are still called Confederate "Heroes".

A shitshow all around.

The emphasis here is on 'today', just as you correctly said, again I can only agree with you, in todays society this most probably won't happen. But every society and nation is a living and breathing thing which is constantly evolving as new generations emerge with new values, ideas and concepts The people in 50 or 60 years might have a completely different idea on the same values. That's how the US society has progressed and I am sure when the founding fathers created this nation and the constitution they had a slightly different idea about it than people today. In 1720 liberty sure meant something different to the people than it did in 1860 or 2018. I mean take the Athens, 2500 years ago they had a democracy where every citizen had the right to vote and assume positions of power, but this was only true for like 30% of the population, namely men over the age of 18 which had citizenship if I remember correctly (Only adult male Athenian citizens who had completed their military training as ephebes had the right to vote in Athens.). A concept like that, would be unthinkable today in our modern societies, and not match our popular definition of democracy.

In 100 years we will be at war with Mexico for oil.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Of course the North wasn't really about freeing slaves or fighting for human rights and even after the civil war ended black people had to fight like another 100 years or so for becoming somewhat full citizens with equal rights. But I think if I really had to, I would rather chose the group that wants to free them to get votes rather than the one that wants to keep them for economic profit/advantages. Just saying, choosing the lesser of two evils was pretty much the only thing you could do here.

Many in the South did not support slavery, but ended up fighting a war because of federal overreach.

Citation needed.

I Quote:

>>As historian James McPherson explained in a recent article, it is especially difficult for southern whites "to admit - that the noble Cause for which their ancestors fought might have included the defense of slavery." Yet, the best historical scholars over the last generation or more have argued convincingly for the centrality of slavery among the causes of the Civil War. The evidence for such arguments provided in the letters, speeches, and articles written by those who established and supported the Confederacy is overwhelming and difficult to deny. While slavery was not the only cause for which the South fought during the Civil War, the testimony of Confederate leaders and their supporters makes it clear that slavery was central to the motivation for secession and war. When southern whites in the 19th century spoke of the "southern way of life," they referred to a way of life founded on white supremacy and supported by the institution of slavery.<<
https://www.nps.gov/resources/story.htm?id=217

 

[TorontoReign]

Of course the North wasn't really about freeing slaves or fighting for human rights and even after the civil war ended black people had to fight like another 100 or so for becoming somewhat full citizens with equal rights. But I think if I really had to, I would rather chose the group that wants to free them to get votes rather than the one that wants to keep them for economic profit/advantages. Just saying, choosing the lesser of two evils was pretty much the only thing you could do here.


Citation needed.

I Quote:

>>As historian James McPherson explained in a recent article, it is especially difficult for southern whites "to admit - that the noble Cause for which their ancestors fought might have included the defense of slavery." Yet, the best historical scholars over the last generation or more have argued convincingly for the centrality of slavery among the causes of the Civil War. The evidence for such arguments provided in the letters, speeches, and articles written by those who established and supported the Confederacy is overwhelming and difficult to deny. While slavery was not the only cause for which the South fought during the Civil War, the testimony of Confederate leaders and their supporters makes it clear that slavery was central to the motivation for secession and war. When southern whites in the 19th century spoke of the "southern way of life," they referred to a way of life founded on white supremacy and supported by the institution of slavery.<<
https://www.nps.gov/resources/story.htm?id=217

Unless you were born in the South.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Newton Knight (November 10, 1829 – February 16, 1922) was an American farmer, soldier and Southern Unionist in Mississippi, best known as the leader of the Knight Company, a band of Confederate army deserters who resisted the Confederacy during the Civil War. Local legends tell of Knight and his men forming the "Free State of Jones" in the area in and around Jones County, Mississippi, at the height of the war. The nature and extent of the Knight Company's opposition to the Confederate government is disputed among historians. After the war, Knight joined the Republican Party and served in Mississippi's Reconstruction government as a deputy US Marshal.

Knight has long been a controversial figure in the region, with people divided over his motives and actions. This controversy has been fueled, in great part, by widespread opposition among white people to Knight's alliances with slaves during the war, and his postwar marriage to a freed slave. They and allies developed a small mixed-race community in southeastern Mississippi.[3] The marriage was considered illegal, as Mississippi had banned interracial marriages before and after the war, except for a period during Reconstruction.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton_Knight

 

[TorontoReign]

Newton Knight (November 10, 1829 – February 16, 1922) was an American farmer, soldier and Southern Unionist in Mississippi, best known as the leader of the Knight Company, a band of Confederate army deserters who resisted the Confederacy during the Civil War. Local legends tell of Knight and his men forming the "Free State of Jones" in the area in and around Jones County, Mississippi, at the height of the war. The nature and extent of the Knight Company's opposition to the Confederate government is disputed among historians. After the war, Knight joined the Republican Party and served in Mississippi's Reconstruction government as a deputy US Marshal.

Knight has long been a controversial figure in the region, with people divided over his motives and actions. This controversy has been fueled, in great part, by widespread opposition among white people to Knight's alliances with slaves during the war, and his postwar marriage to a freed slave. They and allies developed a small mixed-race community in southeastern Mississippi.[3] The marriage was considered illegal, as Mississippi had banned interracial marriages before and after the war, except for a period during Reconstruction.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton_Knight

Which is fine until the North comes and kills your family.

 

[Jogre]

Fighting the right on their ground if you so will, will never be a winning move for the left and will only serve the right to gain even more power and influence, because now they would actually have a somewhat legitimate reason. There is a historical context in which the nazis took over the Weimar Republic and how they managed to make so many centrists and conservatives side with them up till it was to late.

I do agree with completely avoiding armed conflict whenever possible. For this reason I think the Antifa tactics are shitty and only give legitimacy to the alt-right. That being said, I don't think preparing to defend yourself if it comes to that is a bad thing, so long as you are solely acting in self defence or defence of others.

Funnily enough, that Rational Discourse video you posted actually gives a fairly good reason to believe arming your self in self-defence is a reasonable response. See at 22:06 where he points out that alt-right were actively encouraging people to show up to Charlotsville armed. It's kinda lucky that the only terror attack was with a car, if any of the alt-righters who had smuggled arms in to the protests had decided to fire upon the crowds, it would have been a slaughter, with nobody able to fight back.

The least thing you want to end up with is a society that resembles the Weimar Republic in its last days, where extreme leftists and rightwingers eventually start to fight each other in the streets, it really doesn't matter in the end which side shoot first. Dealing with viollence has to be left to the authorities, and if they do not manage it correctly then it has to be exposed to the public. We can take civil rights movements as example here, which achieved their largest victores in the US at least, not trough viollence and arming themselfs, but by marching to washington with 100.000 of people supporting them as a peacefull protest or exposing the pure viollence and hatred of the other side by marches like in Selma and showing it to the public.

I agree, demonstrations should be done peacefully.

I'm not arguing in favour of violence by any means, I'm arguing that arming yourself in self-defence just in case someone attacks you isn't necessarily a bad thing.

 

[Hassknecht]

Arming yourself for self-defense is totally reasonable. It's basically what the conservative side has been arguing for forever. Nice to see that the Left has hopped on the bandwagon of "The gummint and all sorts of shady people are out there to kill us". It only took months and months of "Trump is literally Hitler" propaganda to get to that point. At least people could agree on that point now, even though the details are a bit different. "The government are potentially King George or communists in disguise and want to take our freedom" vs. "The government is the Fourth Reich in disguise and they want to kill us all for not being white". Horseshoe theory, anyone?

Ah, but I forgot that I'm a filthy lurral all for gungrabbing. It keeps happening.

 

[Cliffy McEdgeface]

Horseshoe theory, anyone?

truer than you'd think

 

[Hassknecht]

truer than you'd think

Truer than those sitting on the ends of the horseshoe think, at least.

 

[Jogre]

Nice to see that the Left has hopped on the bandwagon of "The gummint and all sorts of shady people are out there to kill us". It only took months and months of "Trump is literally Hitler" propaganda to get to that point

They haven't as a whole.

I agree as a leftist that arming yourself in self defence or against government tyranny is a good idea, but that's my personal belief. Stating "The left has hopped on the bandwagon" because your seeing a few examples of it is committing a fallacy of composition over a diverse range of political thought.

 

[Hassknecht]

They haven't as a whole.

I agree as a leftist that arming yourself in self defence or against government tyranny is a good idea, but that's my personal belief. Stating "The left has hopped on the bandwagon" because your seeing a few examples of it is committing a fallacy of composition over a diverse range of political thought.

Well, it's starting to happen, that's my point. . Of course, in the more radical fringes there will always be calls for more gun control, but surely only certain individuals.

 

[Cliffy McEdgeface]

Wasn't the Charlottesville car guy actually trying to drive away before someone whacked his car with a baseball bat and panicked his dumb ass

I mean, I saw the pictures, they had him stopped and surrounded and then supposedly someone takes a whack at his car and he floors it

 

[Crni Vuk]

That being said, I don't think preparing to defend yourself if it comes to that is a bad thing, so long as you are solely acting in self defence or defence of others.

The issue I have with that though is, that it creates a certain mindset. If some individual decides to get himself a weapon for self defence, that's alright. But as a group they shouldn't do it. What I mean is, they shouldn't shoulder their rifles before they go for a 'peaceful' protests even if its for self defence. This would simply give the wrong impression. And you can definetly be sure, that anyone against the left would turn it around like, "LOOK THEY HAD WEAPONS BECAUSE THEY WANTED A FIGHT!". Just as example, imagine if Martin Luther King and his followers would have shown up with rifles at every protest, what kind of image would that send to bystanders?

I do agree with completely avoiding armed conflict whenever possible. For this reason I think the Antifa tactics are shitty and only give legitimacy to the alt-right. That being said, I don't think preparing to defend yourself if it comes to that is a bad thing, so long as you are solely acting in self defence or defence of others.

Just to say this, there is way to much hype around Antifa these days. They are to much represented in the media, particularly Fox news considering how insignificant Antifa is politically and how many liberals and centrists reject them. However if you listen to some narrative these days you could believe Antifa is pure ISIS.

 

[Cliffy McEdgeface]

Just to say this, there is way to much hype around Antifa these days. They are to much represented in the media, particularly Fox news considering how insignificant Antifa is politically and how many liberals and centrists reject them. However if you listen to some narrative these days you could believe Antifa is pure ISIS.

Antifa unironically adopt fascist tactics as convenient. They're not ISIS, no, but they're their own special little brand of awful.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Where is Antifa fascist? And what are 'fascist' tactics for you?

 

[Hassknecht]

Forming militant groups to get extreme political goals is the original fascist tactic, almost by definition of the word.

 

[Crni Vuk]

But you could say that about many groups that's a bit to generalized in my opinion. I might be wrong, I havn't been to any Antifa rallies nor do I know any Antifas personaly, but it seems that Antifa is not some kind of organisation with a clear leadership and hierarchy for example, as they are rather activists. Kinda like the Punk movement or anarchism, where you don't have just one single collective group with one clear and defined goal, but many different individuals with all kinds of ideas and motivations. The only thing that seems to unite them all, is the idea that fascism is on the raise and they should resist or protest it. There are certainly violent and crazy people with the antifa, no doubts about it. But I have yet to see them organising like the KKK or white supremacists for example, which display much better networks and rigid structures within their organisations. Just because for example one Antifa group in let us say Boston burns a Starbucks down, doesn't mean the Antifa group in Washington would do the same, or even agree with it or deploying the same tactic. It doesn't seem to me like they follow some kind of plan or ideology. I quote:

In the 2010s, self-described antifa groups have become increasingly active in Western Europe and North America.[18] These loose collectives first arose in the early 2010s in response to growing nationalism in countries including the United States, United Kingdom, Denmark, Germany, and France.[19][20][21] In the US, anti-fascist groups had existed since at least 1988 in the form of the Anti-Racist Action,[22] but an American movement using the same name has become increasingly active since 2016,[23][24] often affiliated with anarchism, and have become known for their clashes with far-right and alt-right groups.[22][25][26] US anti-fascist activities have included violent disruptions and demonstrations which have drawn criticism from both sides of the mainstream political spectrum.[18][21][27] Through their anarchist and anti-nationalist orientation, antifa groups have sometimes been linked to the punk subculture (including straight edge) both in the US and in Europe.[28]

Many of them are idiots, no doubts about it, but they clearly have no role in todays political culture. Most of them can be simply ignored, and those that perform violent actions or crimes, should be simply left to the authorities to deal with, like the police. It's best to deal with them like with the Punk movement. I mean, there's sometimes more violence on a heavy-metal concernt or punk-festival and no ones giving a flying fuck about it and screaming that it's the downfall of western civilisation. Except maybe during a school shooting when people try to blame Marlyin Manson, Death Metal or violent Rap songs for it.

I believe, if it really came to a serious confrontation between the right and antifa, the right would just stomp them. They are a hilarously ineffective movement in that respect. Look at the things they do, you can only laugh and think about how incompetent they are, throwing trashcans in to a shopwindow and screaming and yelling at Trump or something they are a source for a lot of ridicule, where as the right, well if they get serious about something and organising something they can get thousands of people together maching trough the streets with torches. They established pretty good networks these days and they have even a political representation trough the Tea Party movement and a few right wingers in office.

 

[SilverStarApple/Epsilon7]

Do Liberals enjoy derailing threads, shitting them up, and engaging in other damage control methods once they've lost an argument and failed to dupe people?

Do they enjoy typing "Teehee ur ranty posts funny 2 me", "Nobody can criticize communism/liberalism/marxism because if you want to criticize it you don't understand it", "U see SJWs/Marxists/Lurruls everywhere so ur words dont matter", "it's racist sexist and anti-semetic to not be liberal", "guys nobody take that conservative speaking out against my side's transgressions plz, he likes christianity so he should be disregarded", "me and my liberal friends think ur a very dumb man who should be ignored", and similarly worthless libshit?

Did they enjoy sending this thread into over ten layers of derailment, and did they enjoy throwing childish playground-level insults at me to try and get an emotional response out of me, hoping they could distract me from how mercilessly I and other free thinkers have owned their liberal asses at least ten times over in this thread, each?

maching trough the streets with torches

If I show you a video that proves the "LITERAL NAZI CHANTERS WITH TIKI TORHCES" at the charlotesville clusterfuck were paid actors nobody there knew, will you listen to it? Because there weren't any tiki torches at Berkeley. There are no torches at free speech rallies, and there isn't any violence at free speech rallies. Not until cancerous antifa terrorists show up to attack patriots and bystanders with bike locks, ice picks, police batons, bombs, rocks, and whatnot, and then get their asses kicked anyway.

One more thing, and this is something I've been meaning to ask for a while now...

This is a Fallout website. Not a dedicated political website. So why are certain dishonest liberals going full JIDF with "OMG REAL QUOTES FROM REAL ANTI-SEMITES" in their descriptions, quoted big and boxed for all to see? Why try and make your crusade against people who don't like jews into a part of your personal and online identity? Why wear it like a badge? And why suck so bad at debates if you're going to try and sell yourself as the holy ultimate defender of the jews and marxists who totally aren't marxists even if they proudly call themselves that?