Gun discussion. So piper6069 can let the other thread be.

[Qingdao]

Originally Posted by piper6909

When a group is hell bent on breaking up the USA, going to war with them doesn't really constitute an illegal order to attack. It doesn't matter whether it's blue states or red states. If they break away from the USA, by default they forfeit their citizenship.

You didn't specify citizenship you wrote friends and family.



So a group of people aren't allowed to leave the country?

Are we allowed to leave individually?

What if we feel that other states are dictating what we do in our states (say for instance with what we do with guns or cars)?

What if we feel like each state should more independent, be separated from other states politically because of their inherent differences geographically which lead to needing different rules?

[piper6909]

Originally Posted by Qingdao

You didn't specify citizenship you wrote friends and family.



So a group of people aren't allowed to leave the country?

Are we allowed to leave individually?

What if we feel that other states are dictating what we do in our states (say for instance with what we do with guns or cars)?

What if we feel like each state should more independent, be separated from other states politically because of their inherent differences geographically which lead to needing different rules?

But I did say "Illegal orders to attack". If a group wants to secede and is hell bent on breaking up the USA, that constitutes an act of war. Then orders to attack would not be illegal, just as they weren't illegal in the Civil War. Unfortunate as it was.

Any individual or group can leave. Pick up and leave. Go elsewhere. They're free to do so. If they fundamentally don't like America they are free to leave. Or they can legally organize and effect changes by electing leaders more favorable to their interests. Breaking up the USA is a whole different animal.

States already have independence. Case in point, some states legalized cannibus use, while others haven't. It's when said states want to break away from, and thus breaking up the USA that there will be problems.

[Qingdao]

Originally Posted by piper6909

But I did say "Illegal orders to attack". If a group wants to secede and is hell bent on breaking up the USA, that constitutes an act of war. Then orders to attack would not be illegal, just as they weren't illegal in the Civil War. Unfortunate as it was.

Any individual or group can leave. Pick up and leave. Go elsewhere. They're free to do so. If they fundamentally don't like America they are free to leave. Or they can legally organize and effect changes by electing leaders more favorable to their interests. Breaking up the USA is a whole different animal.

States already have independence. Case in point, some states legalized cannibus use, while others haven't. It's when said states want to break away from, and thus breaking up the USA that there will be problems.

I believe legislation was tried and exhausted as a last means for decades before shots were fired on us that started the War Between the States.



Bringing it back full circle; yes the military is smart enough not to place their troops so randomly that they might encounter their relatives/family members. They have done it before.

So mindless automatons set for kill… no, but strategically placed people who don't care or are "just following orders" Yes. I was just citing northern aggression as a close to home example. But trust me around the world are much more grievous examples of humans behaving in such a manner.

[maytag]

WOW. So much here.....

I'll start with the bit that made me decide to actually respond again:

Qingdao, if I'm understanding you correctly, you're suggesting that the "war between the states" was caused by the "Northern agressors", and that this is an example of the government overreach that can result in a government taking-up arms against its citizens, and brothers fighting brothers. Am I understanding that correctly?

Because if I AM understanding you..... well, that's gonna steam me.... haha :troll:

The Southern states were, in fact, KILLING PEOPLE. Just because they were not WHITE, doesn't mean they weren't PEOPLE who were being mistreated, abused and KILLED. You think that wasn't enough to justify the "Northern Agressors" to do something about it? Oh sure.... I've heard it all before: "it's about states' rights." We're hearing it all again now, about Gay Marriage.... "states' rights" was code-talk for "We want the right to OWN PEOPLE and RAPE THEM and KILL THEM, and we don't want the rest of you saying we can't".

You want to know what sort of people were in that southern-states army? You shouldn;t have to look any further than what they were fighting to protect; but if you need more, then look no further than General Lee himself, who ordered the summary execution of EVERY MAN NOT WEARING THE Confederate Uniform as they retreated across the United States, beaten. That's right: he knew the war was over. He knew they were beaten. And as they tore back west to avoid the Union troops, they executed THOUSANDS of men, on the excuse that they were "either spies or deserters." LEE was a coward, and an A$$-Bag. and he SLAUGHTERED many of my wife's family tree.
YEAH.... THAT'S what kind of people were fighting against the government.

And as Piper already said: that wasn't an "illegal order to take up arms", that was an order to PUT DOWN a treasonous Insurrection.
And NO: you don't just get to decide you don;t want to be a part of the club anymore and take your state and go home. Sure: YOU can leave.... but do plan to leave your state where it belongs.

I can't believe we're reaching this far, and grasping at this many straws to try to defend gun rights. and this from ME: a 2nd Amendment SUPPORTER!


And SMK SHOE!!??
SO. RIGHT. ON.
and Thank You!
I'm not sure I could disagree with any of what you just said.... even if I felt so inclined.

[Qingdao]

Originally Posted by maytag

WOW. So much here.....

I'll start with the bit that made me decide to actually respond again:

Qingdao, if I'm understanding you correctly, you're suggesting that the "war between the states" was caused by the "Northern agressors", and that this is an example of the government overreach that can result in a government taking-up arms against its citizens, and brothers fighting brothers. Am I understanding that correctly?

Because if I AM understanding you..... well, that's gonna steam me.... haha :troll:

The Southern states were, in fact, KILLING PEOPLE. Just because they were not WHITE, doesn't mean they weren't PEOPLE who were being mistreated, abused and KILLED. You think that wasn't enough to justify the "Northern Agressors" to do something about it? Oh sure.... I've heard it all before: "it's about states' rights." We're hearing it all again now, about Gay Marriage.... "states' rights" was code-talk for "We want the right to OWN PEOPLE and RAPE THEM and KILL THEM, and we don't want the rest of you saying we can't".

You want to know what sort of people were in that southern-states army? You shouldn;t have to look any further than what they were fighting to protect; but if you need more, then look no further than General Lee himself, who ordered the summary execution of EVERY MAN NOT WEARING THE Confederate Uniform as they retreated across the United States, beaten. That's right: he knew the war was over. He knew they were beaten. And as they tore back west to avoid the Union troops, they executed THOUSANDS of men, on the excuse that they were "either spies or deserters." LEE was a coward, and an A$$-Bag. and he SLAUGHTERED many of my wife's family tree.
YEAH.... THAT'S what kind of people were fighting against the government.

And as Piper already said: that wasn't an "illegal order to take up arms", that was an order to PUT DOWN a treasonous Insurrection.
And NO: you don't just get to decide you don;t want to be a part of the club anymore and take your state and go home. Sure: YOU can leave.... but do plan to leave your state where it belongs.

I can't believe we're reaching this far, and grasping at this many straws to try to defend gun rights. and this from ME: a 2nd Amendment SUPPORTER!


And SMK SHOE!!??
SO. RIGHT. ON.
and Thank You!
I'm not sure I could disagree with any of what you just said.... even if I felt so inclined.

Wow way to drink the kool aid. Step one deaminize your enemy. They did that well enough with you.

Thanks for trash talking my predecessors. And not fully comprehending history.

But hey its the internet

Once again people are auguring the validity of "candy cigarettes'" as a metaphor. I could have mentioned 8 other instances where arms are taken from people and that's when government overstepping happens.

[maytag]

Originally Posted by Qingdao

Wow way to drink the kool aid. Step one deaminize your enemy. They did that well enough with you.



Thanks for trash talking my predecessors. And not fully comprehending history.



But hey its the internet



Once again people are auguring the validity of "candy cigarettes'" as a metaphor. I could have mentioned 8 other instances where arms are taken from people and that's when government overstepping happens.

Your response to me is to insult me, but you haven't said anything substantive. Because of that, I'll stoop lower than I usually do and give you a spelling tip: "deamonize". Verb. Describes the act of creating the impression that something or someone is a demon.

So: you say I don't understand history? WHICH history do you think I've misunderstood? Go ahead: correct me. School me up, professor.

I'm sorry if you feel like your predecessors fit into the group of belligerents that I described. I didn't know them; I'm sure they were wonderful people.

For my family's part, our family tree is chock full of people who went north from Missouri, Arkansas, Georgia, to fight with the Union, against the confederacy. They knew they'd be "fighting against their own", but the values at stake demanded they choose the right side. We take a tremendous amount of pride in them. As one would, when their ancestor risked literally EVERYTHING in order to take a moral stand.

Again: learn me up. Don't just stop at hurling insults my way: Tell me which part of history our family journals got wrong?

I took issue with your portrayal of the "Northern Agressors firing on the poor law-abiding citizens of the Confederate states" as an example of government taking-up arms against its citizens, thereby necessitating current law-abiding Americans bearing arms, so it can't happen again. You seem to have missed my point, so I'll make it ever-more-clear: if a bunch of red states decide to leave the Union because Bernie wins the next election, then yes, I fully support taking up arms to keep it from happening. Even more so if a bunch of blue states decide to leave because they don't like Christians.

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

[Qingdao]

Originally Posted by Qingdao

Wow way to drink the kool aid. Step one deaminize your enemy. They did that well enough with you.

Thanks for trash talking my predecessors. And not fully comprehending history.

But hey its the internet

Once again people are auguring the validity of "candy cigarettes'" as a metaphor. I could have mentioned 8 other instances where arms are taken from people and that's when government overstepping happens.

I don't see many insults; only describing your misconceptions. And yes of course defending my bloodline.

I can see as in every one of my posts (save the one explaining the events in America during the 1860s) an attempt at reigning in the topic back to gun control. Or at least governments control over how we should not buy guns etc.



I'll indulge this tangent away from the topic at hand, but I'd like to for a third time state that I was using this as a metaphor to illustrate that a government can use soldiers to harass or abate citizens (or ex citizens).




I'll admit I've never actually read South Carolina's declaration. Reading it was informative. I'd still like to see the hard copy, but the internet will do for now.

https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states#South_Carolina

It basically prattles on about how they have attempted legislation with the northern states for 25 years, and enough is enough. Or at least that's what I gather from it.

Further it describes how our relationship with England was dissolved.

That is a part that is interesting. Apparently, we didn't jump right into the "union" until 1788. We apparently just wanted to be a "free and sovereign state"

After the American revolution I would assume there was considerable war debt. This is probably why we joined into a union only after the fact.

It goes on to describe how we didn't like how (take offence stopping pills now) non-slave holding states were not abiding by the legislation set in place for returning of slaves. Basically extradition laws were not being adhered to.

The Declaration then goes on to take the words of the constitution and write that the USA was not making a "more perfect union" it was not "establishing justice" yada yada yada.

Finally, the people of SC did NOT like Lincoln. Apparently not one bit.




The wiki article seems to summarize pretty well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_the_Immediate_Causes_Which_Induce_a nd_Justify_the_Secession_of_South_Carolina_from_th e_Federal_Union





All this being said I get the feeling of "Trump is not my president" syndrome from the southerners at that time. But they are my kin and being I am so much like my father and his father before him; I can only imagine myself in a southern man's shoes at that time. I'd probably do the same thing they did. As Nietzsche believes so do I in eternal recurrence.



You take offence because you believe me a bigot?

Or just because I am a proud southern man?

Regardless you are only going to see or hear what you want to and this is the internet so none of it is real

As for spelling errors... Spell check can't catch them all Mr. Samsung tapatalk