Church Shooting

[Alaska Darin]

that's what i thought as well. and there is the loop-hole. although the bigger problem appears to reside with unscrupulous dealers. who woulda thunk it - less than honorable people in arms trade?

There is no loophole. I'm not sure why that's hard to understand.

[boyst]

There is no loophole. I'm not sure why that's hard to understand.

 

legally there is not. Correct. That's where people are confused. Outside of the law there is. Just like at your local Piggly Wiggly, you can easily walk in and walk out without paying - a loop hole. It's illegal but nothing stops you.

[Azalin]

legally there is not. Correct. That's where people are confused. Outside of the law there is. Just like at your local Piggly Wiggly, you can easily walk in and walk out without paying - a loop hole. It's illegal but nothing stops you.

 

Generally speaking, I've found that people who believe that gun shows are hotbeds of illegal gun purchases have never actually been to a gun show. The politicians that rail against gun shows are propagating an untrue characterization of them.

[boyst]

 

Generally speaking, I've found that people who believe that gun shows are hotbeds of illegal gun purchases have never actually been to a gun show. The politicians that rail against gun shows are propagating an untrue characterization of them.

Of course. It's funny because I agree and only have been to one when I was younger. It was pretty much the stereotypical gun hound, conservative right wing NRA guy. I seriously doubt these guys want to put hands in the guns of criminals Not only that, if someone less then desirable walked in there they would probably get shown the way out pretty quick.

 

People who want illegal guns get illegal guns, regardless of gun shows or 7-11 parking lot trunks.

[unbillievable]

legally there is not. Correct. That's where people are confused. Outside of the law there is. Just like at your local Piggly Wiggly, you can easily walk in and walk out without paying - a loop hole. It's illegal but nothing stops you.

It's a recurring theme in gun legislation; they pass laws that make it illegal to break the law. "Gun free zones" are insane if you think about it.

[Max Fischer]

It wasn't the brevity, but rather the irrelevance of your post that stood out.

I could just as easily say no 9/11 = no Iraq war. Does that mean the Iraq war was fought over 9/11?

The evidence that the Civil War hinged on the question of slavery is indisputable. Even contemporaries on both sides said it. It was only later did apologists (yes, including the KKK) whitewashed the question with the broad states rights propaganda.

 

The South wanted to preserve (and expand) slavery and said they had a right to protect the institution by ceceding from the union. That was the overarching reason, all other factors were fairly insignificant and would not have led to treason, ah, war. Yes, at first, the Union would have traded slavery to bring back South, but that was not going to happen because the South didn't trust the Union on slavery and the abolishinists were growing strong each year.

Edited June 27, 2015 by Max Fischer

[Rob's House]

The evidence that the Civil War hinged on the question of slavery is indisputable. Even contemporaries on both sides said it. It was only later did apologists (yes, including the KKK) whitewashed the question with the broad states rights propaganda.

 

The South wanted to preserve (and expand) slavery and said they had a right to protect the institution by ceceding from the union. That was the overarching reason, all other factors were fairly insignificant and would not have led to treason, ah, war. Yes, at first, the Union would have traded slavery to bring back South, but that was not going to happen because the South didn't trust the Union on slavery and the abolishinists were growing strong each year.

No **** Sherlock. We've been over all this.

[Max Fischer]

No **** Sherlock. We've been over all this.

You should have just said I was right. Your last post made no sense.

[Rob's House]

You should have just said I was right. Your last post made no sense.

You weren't right. You were painfully simplistic. The inability to distinguish between the cause of secession, the key issue that led to the war, and the cause of the war, Lincoln's desire to preserve his empire, is the flaw. But that's been discussed ad nausea in this thread so if you want to learn more about it the info's there.

 

Your post said that because without slavery there wouldn't have been a war and therefore the war was about slavery. I pointed out the logical fallacy in that deduction.

Edited June 28, 2015 by Rob's House

[boyst]

You weren't right. You were painfully simplistic. The inability to distinguish between the cause of secession, the key issue that led to the war, and the cause of the war, Lincoln's desire to preserve his empire, is the flaw. But that's been discussed as nausea in this thread so if you want to learn more about it the info's there.

 

Your post said that because without slavery there wouldn't have been a war and therefore the war was about slavery. I pointed out the logical fallacy in that deduction.

just ignore the troll. i fed him plenty already. this issue has been beat to death.

[Max Fischer]

just ignore the troll. i fed him plenty already. this issue has been beat to death.

I see troll is code for not belonging to this lemming club where everyone has to agree with you. Otherwise, you are branded an idiot, a moron or a troll. Nice job message board cowards. The club motto must be "Run Away".

You weren't right. You were painfully simplistic. The inability to distinguish between the cause of secession, the key issue that led to the war, and the cause of the war, Lincoln's desire to preserve his empire, is the flaw. But that's been discussed ad nausea in this thread so if you want to learn more about it the info's there.

Your post said that because without slavery there wouldn't have been a war and therefore the war was about slavery. I pointed out the logical fallacy in that deduction.

You havent grasped logic and deduction. Just as hominem attacks on what confuses you.

 

BTW, there is no flaw in what I wrote and countless respected historians have said.

[Rob's House]

I see troll is code for not belonging to this lemming club where everyone has to agree with you. Otherwise, you are branded an idiot, a moron or a troll. Nice job message board cowards. The club motto must be "Run Away".

 

You havent grasped logic and deduction. Just as hominem attacks on what confuses you.

 

BTW, there is no flaw in what I wrote and countless respected historians have said.

I specifically explained the logical flaw in your argument without regard to what a simple minded pissant you appear to be. And forgive me if I doubt your ability to comprehend anything more nuanced than See Spot Run.

 

And I doubt any historian of any persuasion would endorse the sorry excuse for logic tossed out.

[Max Fischer]

I specifically explained the logical flaw in your argument without regard to what a simple minded pissant you appear to be. And forgive me if I doubt your ability to comprehend anything more nuanced than See Spot Run.

And I doubt any historian of any persuasion would endorse the sorry excuse for logic tossed out.

Go to library and pick up a book. No matter how you slice it, the civil war was ultimately fought because of slavery. States rights were used as the basis to protect the South's perceived right to own and expand slavery. There were no other significant reasons for secession than to preserve slavery. The union did not want the South to cecede, so they fought. Why is that so hard for you to accept?

[FireChan]

Cecede.

[Rob's House]

Go to library and pick up a book. No matter how you slice it, the civil war was ultimately fought because of slavery. States rights were used as the basis to protect the South's perceived right to own and expand slavery. There were no other significant reasons for secession than to preserve slavery. The union did not want the South to cecede, so they fought. Why is that so hard for you to accept?

"Because of" doesn't mean the same thing. That's the point. Let me give you a completely different scenario where a fight wasn't about something that led to it happening.

 

A guy beat up two much younger kids. Because of that, I go and tell him to knock it off . While I'm doing that, one of the kids he beat up (confident because he's got back now) charges him, 2 of my friends take it as their cue and charge him too, throw him up against the house, and hit him a few times before I can pull them off.

 

The next day he calls on the phone and claims I jumped him (truth be told I saved him from a pretty severe ass whoopin, but I digress). He shows up at my house with all his boys and we went out in the street and fought.

 

Now the fight wouldn't have happened if he hadn't beaten up those kids. And the fight happened because of those kids. But those kids aren't what the fight was about. We weren't fighting over those kids; he was fighting because he [erroneously] thought he had been jumped, and I was fighting because I wasn't going to let that mother!@#$er roll up on my house.

 

Point being, what caused the fight isn't always what the fight itself is about.

[Max Fischer]

"Because of" doesn't mean the same thing. That's the point. Let me give you a completely different scenario where a fight wasn't about something that led to it happening.

A guy beat up two much younger kids. Because of that, I go and tell him to knock it off . While I'm doing that, one of the kids he beat up (confident because he's got back now) charges him, 2 of my friends take it as their cue and charge him too, throw him up against the house, and hit him a few times before I can pull them off.

The next day he calls on the phone and claims I jumped him (truth be told I saved him from a pretty severe ass whoopin, but I digress). He shows up at my house with all his boys and we went out in the street and fought.

Now the fight wouldn't have happened if he hadn't beaten up those kids. And the fight happened because of those kids. But those kids aren't what the fight was about. We weren't fighting over those kids; he was fighting because he [erroneously] thought he had been jumped, and I was fighting because I wasn't going to let that mother!@#$er roll up on my house.

Point being, what caused the fight isn't always what the fight itself is about.

Are you the North of the South? :-)

 

Sorry, I know what you're trying to say but the analogy is hard to follow and apply to the Civil War.

 

How about this? Your next door neighbor likes to hold dog fighting in his yard. It's loud, bloody and immoral (but legal on his property and only his property because it's grandfathered). You don't like it, you tell him you don't want him dog fighting and do everything you can to make sure he doesn't do it on other property in the area. Moreover, when injured dogs escape you help them get free, but the police tell you you have to send the dogs back to die a horrible death.

 

Your neighbor starts to feel pressure from the neighborhood to stop dog fighting and in retaliation he builds giant fence and moat around the property that is not only an eye sore and drives down the property of your home but it's Illegal. You begin to fight about the fence etc but it's really about the dog fighting. At first you say just take down the Fence and keep the dog fighting but he refuses because he believes it's the only way to keep his dog fighting. You then say, !@#$ it, not only am I going to get his fence ripped down, I'm going to get a ban dog fighting, which the root cause of the conflict. The neighbor may forever hate you but hopefully his kids will see that he was an immoral dog fighter and not sing his praises about protecting his property.

 

Not sure that works but trying to be more clear on cause and effect.

[unbillievable]

A couple wants a divorce because one of them cheated on the other. Their catholic priest says they aren't allowed to divorce for any reason. The couple joins a Protestant church who allows them to end the marriage citing adultery.

 

Was the above conflict about the couple's right to divorce or whether cheating is a valid reason?

Edited June 28, 2015 by unbillievable

[Azalin]

 

Was the above conflict about the couple's right to divorce or whether cheating is a valid reason?

 

That depends, Does one of them own a gun, and if so, did they acquire it legally?

[K-9]

You weren't right. You were painfully simplistic. The inability to distinguish between the cause of secession, the key issue that led to the war, and the cause of the war, Lincoln's desire to preserve his empire, is the flaw. But that's been discussed ad nausea in this thread so if you want to learn more about it the info's there.

 

Your post said that because without slavery there wouldn't have been a war and therefore the war was about slavery. I pointed out the logical fallacy in that deduction.

Textbook propaganda. I mean, right out of the playbook. C'mon, which neo-confederate organization do you belong to? Is it one of the relatively less radical ones like League of the South or Sons of Confederate Veterans? One of the more militant organizations?

 

The idea that Lincoln desired the pretext of secession to go to war and preserve his "empire" is asinine. As if the decades of preceding history to the events didn't exist at all.

 

New question for you and your circle of historians to ponder: did the governments of newly seceded states have the right to deny the will of voting majorities in some counties within those states that voted not to secede? Did those governments have the right to garrison confederate troops in those counties as a deterrent to the population moving forward? Did Lincoln and the federal government still have an obligation to protect and serve those citizens' rights as guaranteed by the Constitution?

[Rob's House]

Textbook propaganda. I mean, right out of the playbook. C'mon, which neo-confederate organization do you belong to? Is it one of the relatively less radical ones like League of the South or Sons of Confederate Veterans? One of the more militant organizations?

 

The idea that Lincoln desired the pretext of secession to go to war and preserve his "empire" is asinine. As if the decades of preceding history to the events didn't exist at all.

 

New question for you and your circle of historians to ponder: did the governments of newly seceded states have the right to deny the will of voting majorities in some counties within those states that voted not to secede? Did those governments have the right to garrison confederate troops in those counties as a deterrent to the population moving forward? Did Lincoln and the federal government still have an obligation to protect and serve those citizens' rights as guaranteed by the Constitution?

Again, someone throwing up a straw man. Only to your credit, I don't think you're trying to do so, I think you honestly don't get the point so I'll give a brief explanation, hopefully for the last time.

 

Lincoln didn't want secession, but once it happened he could either allow it to happen or he could could take military action to stop it. If you think he went to war primarily to end slavery rather than preserve the union (empire) then, sorry for being blunt, but you're a !@#$ing fool, and few of any respected historians of any persuasion agree with you.

 

And your bit about counties that voted against secession would only be relevant if those counties moved to separate from their states and Davis sent troops in to prevent that. Only even then the analogy fails because state governments were fundamentally different from the federal government. Either way, it's tangential and if you want to go down that rabbit hole you can do it alone.

 

Edit: And to Max Fischer I'd like you to take note of the bolded part. THAT is what an ad hominem attack looks like.

 

You guys should pay me tuition.

Edited June 28, 2015 by Rob's House