Frothers Unite! UK

Goldwyrm wrote:

SaigonSaddler wrote:For example, of course the president is going to have armed guards - and that's not a erosion of civil liberties based on inequality of access.

His right to be protected is not the argument. Taking away the effective means for someone else to protect themselves while maintaining his own effective means for security is the elitist hypocrisy.

What effective means are people planning to take away or is the only way you can defend your house and family with a fully automatic assault rifle with a 30 round magazine of armour piercing ammunition??

You can't play the defence card because NOTHING that is proposed will stop you from defending yourself and your family as you believe you have the need to, so the argument is bollocks.

DemonEtrigan wrote:What effective means are people planning to take away or is the only way you can defend your house and family with a fully automatic assault rifle with a 30 round magazine of armour piercing ammunition??

You can't play the defence card because NOTHING that is proposed will stop you from defending yourself and your family as you believe you have the need to, so the argument is bollocks.

For the 3rd time, a fully automatic assault rifle is already illegal without a selectively issued federal license. Very very few people have access to these.

And you missed my note Jan 9 on legislation introduced in NJ.

Goldwyrm wrote:And here's what my state's legislature introduced today, 18 potential new gun bills:

A-3645/S-2476 Requires ammunition sales and transfers be conducted as face-to-face transactions.

A-3646/S-2474 Establishes a regulatory system to govern the sale and transfer of ammunition.

A-3653 Criminalizes purchasing or owning weapon if person has previous conviction of unlawful possession of weapon.

A-3659 Revises definition of destructive device to include certain weapons of 50 caliber or greater.

A-3664 Reduces lawful maximum capacity of certain ammunition magazines in New Jersey.

A-3666/S-2465 Prohibits mail order, Internet, telephone, and any other anonymous method of ammunition sale or transfer in New Jersey.

A-3667 Requires mental health screening by licensed professional to purchase a firearm.

A-3668/S-2467 Prohibits investment by State of pension and annuity funds in companies manufacturing, importing, and selling assault firearms for civilian use.

A-3676 Requires psychological evaluation and in-home inspection as prerequisite to purchase firearm.

A-3687 Disqualifies person named on federal Terrorist Watchlist from obtaining firearms identification card or permit to purchase handgun.

A-3688 Requires mental health evaluation and list of household members with mental illness to purchase firearm.

A-3689 Requires security guards who carry weapons to wear certain uniform, including identification card.

A-3690/S-2430 Declares violence a public health crisis, recommends expansion of mental health programs, recommends federal adoption of gun control measures, and establishes ?Study Commission on Violence.?

AJR-89 Urges President and US Senate to ratify Arms Trade Treaty proposed by United Nations.

AR-133 Expresses support for creation of task force on gun control led by Vice President Biden.

S-2464 Regulates sale and transfer of rifle and shotgun ammunition.

S-2475 Reduces maximum capacity of ammunition magazines to 10 rounds.

SR-92 Urges Congress to strengthen gun control laws.

The Presidential executive orders are the tip of the iceberg. Lots of stuff still to come through the legislative branch, and via individual states passing laws such as what's occurring in NY.

None of this affects most of you, so I don't expect you to have half the details. But I've posted some of this here already (see above).

I've addressed most of the questions with what I feel are reasonable answers and perspective. That has been mostly reciprocated with emotional bluster and condescension.

TMeier wrote:

the wig wearing slave owners charter.

To be fair that did not go unnoticed by them at the time. They decided it was a compromise or nothing, stopped the importation of slaves and hoped matters would resolve themselves in the future.

We all know how that worked out.

Had the States compromising the South kept their cool, the matter might've eventually resolved itself with minimal conflict, but Scots-Irish temperament being what it was and still is, along with the perception, real or imagined, of loss of influence, wasn't going produce a discussion governed by logic.

So the American Civil War was a consequence of Scot and Irish temperament.

Ajsalium wrote:So the American Civil War was a consequence of Scot and Irish temperament.

American Rule number One - It's ALWAYS somebody else.

Condottiero wrote:Had the States compromising the South kept their cool, the matter might've eventually resolved itself with minimal conflict, but Scots-Irish temperament being what it was and still is, along with the perception, real or imagined, of loss of influence, wasn't going produce a discussion governed by logic.

I'm imagining you slurring that out from across the bar, but it still doesn't make any sense.

Care to name a country with a history of say, more than 100 years of democracy, that has fallen to a tyranny since Ancient Greece?

Your argument would be stronger if there were more democratic countries which had been around for very long. Britain for example has really only been controlled by a majority of the people since the reform bills of the 19th century before that it was really an oligarchy/plutocracy with a constitutional monarch. You could argue it?s only been one since 1918 (the U.S. took two years longer because we needed an amendment) when women got the vote, that?s when the government was potentially first selected by consent of a majority.

So the American Civil War was a consequence of Scot and Irish temperament.

I'd say it was the consequence of a society were social status was dependent almost entirely on money and economic conditions. The economies of the North and South were incompatible and with the cotton boom slavery was just too lucrative to give up. The North could not let the South go, it would have been war before long no matter what. Southern filibusters had already tried to grab Cuba and Honduras and had their eyes on more of Mexico. Lincoln made the politically correct noises because most people in the North didn't see why there had to be a war but he knew what had to be done.

The short answer about why there was an American Civil war is; people will do anything, talk themselves into anything, if there are no immediate adverse consequences to themselves and they can make a lot of money.

Ajsalium wrote:So the American Civil War was a consequence of Scot and Irish temperament.

States' Rights was a later invention. The secessionists weren't that concerned about parts of States that wanted to remain loyal and even went so far as to pack the local legislatures with their confederates and even use force to intimidate pro-Unionists. Then there was the issue of Federal properties scattered throughout the South that was assumed would revert to the individual States, so no such thought was given to it, not even compensating for Uncle Sam for those places he'd paid for years ago, kind of like what a bunch of other St. Andrews Cross flag wavers are entertaining now.

Prior to the election of Lincoln, most US Presidents hailed from the South and government offices and Congress and the Senate were packed with Southerners. The Mexican-American War was due to Southern desire for territorial expansion and there was opposition to it at the time, from Lincoln and Grant, though a participant, denounced the causes. Southern influence was so great, that at one point the New England States were considering secession.

Rapid Northern industrialization, with a shift to big business influence, led to Southern fears of being reduced to the status of an exploited agricultural colony, like India or Ireland, where foreigner "Yankees" would dictate the prices. With the election of someone who wasn't one of their own and wasn't particularly sympathetic, tensions began to rise.

While slavery was an issue, it wasn't the cause, as a sort of compromise, like in prior instances, could be eventually reached, usually to the advantage of Southerners. The Border States, where slavery was declining, still made plenty of money off the trade with their Southern neighbors, but remained loyal in 1861 and even fought off encroachment prior to 1st Bull Run. Despite claims of Yankee aggression, there were attempts to grab neighboring territory and send troops to those parts refusing to secede: West Virginia, due to its location was able to maintain its independence, but attempts by Eastern Tennessee, roughly the location of the failed US State of Franklin, was again stamped out.

Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation didn't affect the Border States and those areas occupied by Federal forces, but was intended for those areas in rebellion - the right of the conqueror. Complete emancipation wasn't a plan til the 1864 election, with Lincoln pressured by the abolitionists.

Had the Southerners kept their cool, they wouldn't have had to secede, as Lincoln wasn't going to take away their slaves, but once they had seceded, had they not made the first belligerent moves, before Fort Sumter, Lincoln might not have had the support to prosecute a war. An undermanned Fort Sumter wasn't threatening access to Charleston Harbor and even if the various State governments couldn't reach a compensation agreement with the Feds, unless the locations were used as staging posts for attack, in which case Lincoln would come across as the aggressor, the areas could be ignored by the locals.

Goldwyrm wrote:

Condottiero wrote:Had the States compromising the South kept their cool, the matter might've eventually resolved itself with minimal conflict, but Scots-Irish temperament being what it was and still is, along with the perception, real or imagined, of loss of influence, wasn't going produce a discussion governed by logic.

I'm imagining you slurring that out from across the bar, but it still doesn't make any sense.

Culture of honor (Southern United States)

Re-examining the Subculture of Violence in the South

Location and the people who emigrated to the area, resulted in a continuation of the culture from parts of Scotland and Ireland: an emphasis on individualism and rejection of centralized authority, reliance on kith and kin to resolve disturbances, along with possession of (agricultural) land. With secession, the States weren't interested in another federal government, but a confederation.

Even today, a higher proportion of Southerners enlist in the military and tend to display greater patriotism than Northerners.

In contrast, the Northern States were settled by those from areas where there was some form of centralization and an attitude of reasonable respect for authority: England and the German states that were consolidating at the time. As long as their rights were respected, the colonists were loyal: IIRC, there was an attempt by Massachusetts to rebel in the late 1600s, due to Governor corruption, but the matter was resolved by negotiation, something alien to the Hanoverian Dynasty. Location and the settlers' temperament resulted in an emphasis on industry and trade.

Duff wrote:

Goldwyrm wrote:
Of course with dictatorships in other countries in recent times, it certainly helps the populace from getting run over by tanks in market squares if they have something to defend themselves with.

Really? Care to name a country with a history of say, more than 100 years of democracy, that has fallen to a tyranny since Ancient Greece?

Tyranny, democracy, they're imperfect labels.

What government in the last 70 years has confined citizens to internment camps, performed illegal medical experiments on its citizens, waged foreign wars without declaring them through its congress, engaged in illegal surveillance, detained people indefinitely without process, tortured, and assassinated?