WaGuns.org

So by that logic, you'd be OK with say Illinois seceding because they don't want to let people have guns in their homes?

kf7mjf wrote:So by that logic, you'd be OK with say Illinois seceding because they don't want to let people have guns in their homes?

Yes. Actually.....other than some questionably decent pizza---depending on the source---that rust belt crap hole of anti-gun cornfield can sink for all I care.


The common denominator is people. People fuck things up. Not government, not borders, not "states", not "sovereign" anything. People. Are by and large quite helpless and stupid.

The point being, taking your ball and going home just because you can't make other places a slave holding state is a piss poor example of a justifiable revolution. It's like Chicago going to war to avoid issuing CPL or because they didn't like the taxes passed by the Illinois legislature.

The civil war was a revolution to try and create a government that supported slavery. The only people being oppressed there were bought and sold.

kf7mjf wrote:So by that logic, you'd be OK with say Illinois seceding because they don't want to let people have guns in their homes?

Yes.


If Illinois wants to go to war for not issuing Cpl's let them go for it. Who will they have to fight for them? They won't have the support of the people(ok maybe we can get lucky and have ANZAC move there).

Slavery was around for many many years(think Roman Empire) prior to African American slaves being brought to the new world. The south wasnt evil for wanting to protect their way of life.

kf7mjf wrote:The civil war was a revolution to try and create a government that supported slavery. The only people being oppressed there were bought and sold.

Errrrrrrr uhhhhh the government supported slavery for years previous to the civil war. I do believe several of our founding fathers owned slaves... Including some presidents

In 1860 slavery was on the way out. The south had failed to expand it to newly created states, and their slave holding economy was threatened by Northern industrialization and their reliance on Europe for manufactured goods.

Secession happened because the progressive anti slavery party took the White House, and a heavily divided and desperate South took the bloody way out, instead of catching up with the times. The south was the last hold out in an evil system that had died out in the rest of the Republic, and were willing to kill to maintain it. I cannot muster sympathy for slave holders and supporters of the system who felt so threatened that they chose to go to war to preserve a lifestyle based off owning people.

All men are created equal came to mean two different things by 1860.

All the flowery language and reference to liberty and self determination come back to two things. Some states wanted the freedom to do the wrong thing, and they wanted to make their own government to enforce it. Fun fact. The Confederate Government prohibited outlawing slavery and held states could not secede from the Confederacy.

Strange... I do believe anti slavery groups shed the first blood. People like John brown caused bloodshed long before the civil war was even considered.

Do I agree with slavery... No... Do I belive that those people had the right to do so... Yes. Because that was their belief system. Just as there are many other belief systems thought the world today... Do I agree with them, nope, do I want to go to war with them because I don't like how the think. Nope.

Bleeding Kansas predates John Brown. I would argue one does not have the right to follow their belief if it infringes on the rights of others. Otherwise Muslim majority communities could make Shari'a law courts and law inside the US, or dominant Christian communities could force their laws on an area.

kf7mjf wrote:Bleeding Kansas predates John Brown. I would argue one does not have the right to follow their belief if it infringes on the rights of others. Otherwise Muslim majority communities could make Shari'a law courts and law inside the US, or dominant Christian communities could force their laws on an area.

Christian law...... Errr they do.

You swear an oath in Court, on a bible.
If you cheat on your wife(adultery in the Christian bible, but allowable in some other cultures) you get fucked by the courts.

"In God we trust" is on money.

"Under God" is in the pledge of allegiance.

John brown is a quick and simple example of how fucked up the north was.

And you talk about how great the union was, how they wanted to end slavery and make all men created equal...

Then they turn around, run the native Americans of of their own land, massacre the ones that stayed or fought back, and shoved the rest onto "reservations".

All done by the same people who fought for the end of "slavery"...

You can swear an oath on anything or not on anything at all.

Adultery is violation of basic marriage contract. Civil matter.

That God shit needs taken off our money, etc, but there is no application of Canon law there either being forced on people.

Again, I see John Brown, and raise you Bleeding Kansas. And Fort Pillow. And Brown was executed for his actions by a federal court.

You are right, the Europeans fucked over the Indians, and have done so through modern times. It still doesn't make waging war to keep slaves a moral or even valid cause.

150 years after the guns fell silent, the propaganda of the South regarding State's Rights and liberty, have become an anti Federal rallying cry, while excusing or glossing over the evils wrought by the South's peculiar institution.

kf7mjf wrote:You can swear an oath on anything or not on anything at all.

Adultery is violation of basic marriage contract. Civil matter.

That God shit needs taken off our money, etc, but there is no application of Canon law there either being forced on people.

Again, I see John Brown, and raise you Bleeding Kansas. And Fort Pillow. And Brown was executed for his actions by a federal court.

You are right, the Europeans fucked over the Indians, and have done so through modern times. It still doesn't make waging war to keep slaves a moral or even valid cause.

150 years after the guns fell silent, the propaganda of the South regarding State's Rights and liberty, have become an anti Federal rallying cry, while excusing or glossing over the evils wrought by the South's peculiar institution.

Bloody Kansas was started and escalated by anti slave groups attempting to stop slavery from spreading. John Brown and Henry Beecher were there, and supplied weapons to fight, stolen from an armory if I recall? So no bleeding Kansas does not "predate" John brown, as he was one of those involved in the conflict.

As far as fort pillow... They where uniformed troops who attempted to surrender. They should have been treated as such. But a flip of that coin... I belive in no quarter and no mercy to my enemies.

Both sides commited atrocities to soldiers and civilians alike during the war. Confederate prisoners of war were also basically starved by their union guards and given very little hope of survival.

The pro slavery elements from Missouri started the trouble in Kansas, using violence to intimidate voters.

If we are going to play the POW atrocity Olympics, Andersonville comes to mind too.

But we keep coming back to square one. The South made war because slavery was threatened. And that shit ain't cool, and does not deserve to be compared to the causes and ideals of the American Revolution.

Yes both sides treated POWs like shit. If have rather been shot than be a POW.

It's all about the government controlling the states rights. Seem familiar?

240 years and most of the wars fought on our land were about control by a government. Wether a king or a president.

It was about adequate representation in government and certain rights due Englishmen that were being denied the colonists, as well as the restrictions on free trade.

The south wanted to own people.

well what kind of logic do you expect from a troll Soldier?