Church Shooting

[birdog1960]

So many "lost cause" boys on this thread - really shows the power of propaganda

i guess we shouldn't be surprised by the outrageous views on any number of subjects given the views exhibited in this thread.

Edited June 26, 2015 by birdog1960

[Rob's House]

 

Not really, it was a federal military fort.

We can split hairs all we want, but unless you're arguing that the south invaded the north and not vice versa I think my analogy works.

So many "lost cause" boys on this thread - really shows the power of propaganda

Yet sadly, none of the union fanboys can come up with anything more substantive than this.

[GG]

We can split hairs all we want, but unless you're arguing that the south invaded the north and not vice versa I think my analogy works.

 

I think that firing on a federal military installation counts as an insurgency

[Magox]

See, but i can take it. If someone called you out on anything else, which is hilarious - you selectively choose your responses or ignore their premise. It's ironic. Of all the things i stated, just like you do for everything else - you cherry picked what you wanted and put it in to your response. It's what you've done all along. Its like rain on your wedding day.

 

There is only one response I am aware of that I haven't answered yet and thats from the transexual thing - because I am still reading his links and others to see if I can learn more about it. That's how things work. I've read others replies to him and I know enough to know what i know but if he insists there is more information I respect him and others enough to read up on it. You just completely disregard numerous others who compose well put responses and **** all over yourself to say "I got a feeling."

 

You remind me of Mr VanHouten. "Can I borrow a feeling?"

 

What's funny is that you actually believe what you just wrote. The points that have been made have been echoed by numerous posters, which first and foremost, the impetus for the war was slavery. Sure, Lincoln more than anything wanted to preserve the Union, which I've stated multiple times in this thread but you hard-heads want to create your own narrative of how this discussion has devolved. But make no bones about it, if slavery hadn't of been rejected by your ancestral Confederate brethren, then the war would have never have happened.

 

I'm not going to continue to repeat what I posted just so I can attempt to re explain myself to some dipshit. If you want to try to understand what I wrote, then re read it.

 

There are plenty of posts, with plenty of explanations that are filled with reasonable explanations backed by facts.

 

The only ones that are rewriting history here are you yahoo's.

 

And lets not forget, it was you who declared that slavery would have only lasted another 20 to 30 years. It was that moronic comment that brought me into the fold.

Edited June 26, 2015 by Magox

[Rob's House]

i guess we shouldn't be surprised by the outrageous views on any number of subjects given the views exhibited in this thread.

Or by the lack of substantive argument by the arrogant lefties whose key talking point is to call the opposition racist and/or outrageous.

 

I'm curious what I've said that's outrageous.

 

I'm also still curious what would have been different about your friend buying your shotgun from a retailer.

 

Don't worry, I'm not expecting substantive answers to either.

 

What's funny is that you actually believe what you just wrote. The points that I have been made have been echoed by numerous posters, which first and foremost, the impetus for the war was slavery. Sure, Lincoln more than anything wanted to preserve the Union, which I've stated multiple times in this thread but you hard-heads want to create your own narrative of how this discussion has devolved. But make no bones about it, if slavery hadn't of been rejected by your Confederate brethren, then the war would have never have happened.

 

I'm not going to continue to repeat what I posted just so I can attempt to re explain myself to some dipshit. If you want to try to understand what I wrote, then re read it.

 

There are plenty of posts, with plenty of explanations that are filled with reasonable explanations backed by facts.

 

The only ones that are rewriting history here are you yahoo's.

 

And lets not forget, it was you who declared that slavery would have only lasted another 20 to 30 years. It was that moronic comment that brought me into the fold.

Nice to see you walking that one back. I'm glad you see it my way ... Now.

 

I think that firing on a federal military installation counts as an insurgency

So it's your position that the south invaded the north?

 

I could also argue that upon secession the union no longer had claim to the land on which the outpost sits. But that wasn't really my point.

[truth on hold]

 

Oh Jesus H Christ. Shut the !@#$ up! That's not the point he was trying to make!

What was the point? This thread has really gotten OT Edited June 26, 2015 by JTSP

[Magox]

 

Nice to see you walking that one back. I'm glad you see it my way ... Now.

 

 

http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/178954-church-shooting/page-29

 

Post #569

 

Posted Yesterday, 07:05 PM

The argument is simple. Lincoln wants to preserve the union, he sees a rebellion from the South that stands firm on an indefensible position. His goal is to keep the union in tact and that this deplorable group from the south want to secede from the union because under the guise of state's rights, they don't want any yankee to tell them that they can't have slaves. He knows that the courts are in their pocket, and with just a few provocative actions from the South, he takes action with the suspension of habeus corpus, knowing that this most likely meant war.

 

 

 

I always had that position.

[Rob's House]

http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/178954-church-shooting/page-29

 

Post #569

 

 

I always had that position.

I suppose you did. I still see that as at odds with your argument about Lincoln's great moral crusade for equality, but we've beat that horse to death.

[Magox]

I suppose you did. I still see that as at odds with your argument about Lincoln's great moral crusade for equality, but we've beat that horse to death.

 

 

You see, all that for nothing...If you had just read what I wrote rather than perceive what you wanted to see what I was saying, we could have avoided most of this.

[boyst]

What's funny is that you actually believe what you just wrote.

Am I funny to you? Am I some sort of clown? Am I here for your amusement?

 

The points that have been made have been echoed by numerous posters, which first and foremost, the impetus for the war was slavery.

No, not really. The war wasn't started because of slavery. Look at the timing of the war vs. the freedom of the slaves, etc.

 

Sure, Lincoln more than anything wanted to preserve the Union, which I've stated multiple times in this thread but you hard-heads want to create your own narrative of how this discussion has devolved.

No, you said Lincoln wanted to free the slaves and his whole mission of the war and to protect the Union was for the slaves and the moral high ground of doing what is right against the Constitution.

 

But make no bones about it, if slavery hadn't of been rejected by your ancestral Confederate brethren, then the war would have never have happened.

Cept, 1 I'm a Yankee and then my Southern ancestors were far too poor to be slaves. My great, great grandfather and his father were simple farming folks. Granted one of the older families in this area, but, my ancestors and those who I cannot even speak for lived in the Pro-Union Western area of NC. And, that you're stating all of this war-not-happening stuff on your beliefs vs. fact, ya just can't do that funny guy.

 

I'm not going to continue to repeat what I posted just so I can attempt to re explain myself to some dipshit. If you want to try to understand what I wrote, then re read it.

Sticks and stones my break my bones but words will never hurt me. Besides, I am a moron not a dipshit. And, you already have been doling labels to everyone, so ease up Nancy. This ain't personal, you're just an idiot.

 

Mostly because, well, the complaint you're making about re-explaining yourself over and over again is exactly what you're doing because you have at least 3 posters arguing successfully against your tired lamenting weak arguments. Further, there are another 2 or 3 that are not even bothering discussing it with you due to your ignorance. I am ignorant on many things, too. But, I seldom attempt to debate them.

 

inb4, "herpderp, yeah you're ignorant alright!"

 

There are plenty of posts, with plenty of explanations that are filled with reasonable explanations backed by facts.

Yup, lets thank Tasker, Bobs domicile, GG, TrannyG, Darin, Tom and all of those people for their posts. They did great. You, not so much.

 

 

The only ones that are rewriting history here are you yahoo's.

 

Yahoo is so last decade. It's all about Bing, yo.

 

And lets not forget, it was you who declared that slavery would have only lasted another 20 to 30 years. It was that moronic comment that brought me into the fold.

I made you a moron? I don't understand!?

 

My statement of opinion was no more then 99% of your posts in this thread. You did have a few facts and I will quote them.

 

The

 

 

words

 

 

I've

 

declared

ignorance

 

Edited June 26, 2015 by jboyst62

[Rob's House]

 

 

You see, all that for nothing...If you had just read what I wrote rather than perceive what you wanted to see what I was saying, we could have avoided most of this.

The line of conversation I took issue with was the one surrounding this post:

 

 

And why did he suspend it? What caused that to happen? Would the court that ruled on the Dredd Scott side with Lincoln? Context matters.

 

And the precedence of only congress being able to suspend habeus corpus was after Lincoln's suspension of Habeus Corpus, not before.

 

I don't dispute what Lincoln did was technically unlawful, but he did it for what the vast majority of American's and just about anyone else that is familiar with the Civil War would consider to be noble.

 

So again, would you trust the judgement of this court knowing that they ruled that African American's are inferior and not worthy of citizenship?

 

I've answered your questions, now please answer mine.

It seems to imply that Lincoln's illegal actions were done for humanitarian reasons. I strongly disagree with that. But I've said what I have to say on that issue

[Magox]

 

What's funny is that you actually believe what you just wrote.

Am I funny to you? Am I some sort of clown? Am I here for your amusement?

 

The points that have been made have been echoed by numerous posters, which first and foremost, the impetus for the war was slavery.

No, not really. The war wasn't started because of slavery. Look at the timing of the war vs. the freedom of the slaves, etc.

 

Sure, Lincoln more than anything wanted to preserve the Union, which I've stated multiple times in this thread but you hard-heads want to create your own narrative of how this discussion has devolved.

No, you said Lincoln wanted to free the slaves and his whole mission of the war and to protect the Union was for the slaves and the moral high ground of doing what is right against the Constitution.

 

But make no bones about it, if slavery hadn't of been rejected by your ancestral Confederate brethren, then the war would have never have happened.

Cept, 1 I'm a Yankee and then my Southern ancestors were far too poor to be slaves. My great, great grandfather and his father were simple farming folks. Granted one of the older families in this area, but, my ancestors and those who I cannot even speak for lived in the Pro-Union Western area of NC. And, that you're stating all of this war-not-happening stuff on your beliefs vs. fact, ya just can't do that funny guy.

 

I'm not going to continue to repeat what I posted just so I can attempt to re explain myself to some dipshit. If you want to try to understand what I wrote, then re read it.

Sticks and stones my break my bones but words will never hurt me. Besides, I am a moron not a dipshit. And, you already have been doling labels to everyone, so ease up Nancy. This ain't personal, you're just an idiot.

 

Mostly because, well, the complaint you're making about re-explaining yourself over and over again is exactly what you're doing because you have at least 3 posters arguing successfully against your tired lamenting weak arguments. Further, there are another 2 or 3 that are not even bothering discussing it with you due to your ignorance. I am ignorant on many things, too. But, I seldom attempt to debate them.

 

inb4, "herpderp, yeah you're ignorant alright!"

 

There are plenty of posts, with plenty of explanations that are filled with reasonable explanations backed by facts.

Yup, lets thank Tasker, Bobs domicile, GG, TrannyG, Darin, Tom and all of those people for their posts. They did great. You, not so much.

 

 

The only ones that are rewriting history here are you yahoo's.

 

Yahoo is so last decade. It's all about Bing, yo.

 

And lets not forget, it was you who declared that slavery would have only lasted another 20 to 30 years. It was that moronic comment that brought me into the fold.

I made you a moron? I don't understand!?

 

My statement of opinion was no more then 99% of your posts in this thread. You did have a few facts and I will quote them.

 

 

You didn't have one substantive thing to say out of all that gibberish.

 

That was impressive, moron.

[boyst]

 

You didn't have one substantive thing to say out of all that gibberish.

 

That was impressive, moron.

Yes, I did...

 

see:

 

are

[birdog1960]

Or by the lack of substantive argument by the arrogant lefties whose key talking point is to call the opposition racist and/or outrageous.

 

I'm curious what I've said that's outrageous.

 

I'm also still curious what would have been different about your friend buying your shotgun from a retailer.

 

Don't worry, I'm not expecting substantive answers to either.

 

re substantive arguments on this issue, i'm inclined to let any readers decide for themselves. i think the cause for outrage in your position is, in lincoln's words, self evident.

 

re gun laws, the specifics re straw gun purchases are not key to my argument. the fact that gun shows and flea markets are the centers for most of this activity is:

 

:Gun shows and flea markets are a “major venue for illegal trafficking”⁸ and thus have been the target of law enforcement trafficking and straw purchasing investigations. During ATF’s investigations of gun shows, the agency found that FFLs committed numerous federal crimes at shows, including facilitating straw purchases.⁹ Subsequent ATF investigations at gun shows from 2004 – 2006 uncovered “widespread” straw purchasing at shows, where guns were diverted to “convicted felons and local and international gangs.”^10"

 

^{http://smartgunlaws.org/straw-purchases-policy-summary/}

Edited June 26, 2015 by birdog1960

[boyst]

re substantive arguments on this issue, i'm inclined to let any readers decide for themselves. i think the cause for outrage in your position is, in lincoln's words, self evident.

 

re gun laws, the specifics re straw gun purchases are not key to my argument. the fact that gun shows and flea markets are the centers for most of this activity is:

 

:Gun shows and flea markets are a “major venue for illegal trafficking”⁸ and thus have been the target of law enforcement trafficking and straw purchasing investigations. During ATF’s investigations of gun shows, the agency found that FFLs committed numerous federal crimes at shows, including facilitating straw purchases.⁹ Subsequent ATF investigations at gun shows from 2004 – 2006 uncovered “widespread” straw purchasing at shows, where guns were diverted to “convicted felons and local and international gangs.”^10"

 

^{http://smartgunlaws.org/straw-purchases-policy-summary/}

One thing that doesn't add up is that if people are doing this and its already illegal then why would they care if it is more illegal? You can't make it double illegal.

 

Besides, what % is getting their firearms at these shows and committing crimes with it; I am not talking about a felon with a gun or someone who buys a handgun without a permit. I am saying, what % is going to these shows and through all of that to get guns to commit a crime? Most information I have ever seen is that these gang bangers, etc are getting their guns through breakins and theft.

 

The gun show argument really fueled up after Columbine, that seems the only reason it ever got traction - which is funny because the guns didn't come from a show. Then when Giffords got shot it put it back to the front again.

[Rob's House]

re substantive arguments on this issue, i'm inclined to let any readers decide for themselves. i think the cause for outrage in your position is, in lincoln's words, self evident.

 

re gun laws, the specifics re straw gun purchases are not key to my argument. the fact that gun shows and flea markets are the centers for most of this activity is:

 

:Gun shows and flea markets are a major venue for illegal trafficking⁸ and thus have been the target of law enforcement trafficking and straw purchasing investigations. During ATFs investigations of gun shows, the agency found that FFLs committed numerous federal crimes at shows, including facilitating straw purchases.⁹ Subsequent ATF investigations at gun shows from 2004 2006 uncovered widespread straw purchasing at shows, where guns were diverted to convicted felons and local and international gangs.^10"

That doesn't address how your example illustrated this point at all.

 

And I'd be shocked if you could accurately describe any position I've taken that is self-evidently outrageous.

 

And the "self-evident" bit sounds like a cop out because you can't articulate a reasonable argument to support that assertion.

Edited June 26, 2015 by Rob's House

[Azalin]

 

 

You see, all that for nothing...If you had just read what I wrote rather than perceive what you wanted to see what I was saying, we could have avoided most of this.

 

Yes, but the rest of us would have been deprived of some pretty entertaining reading.

[K-9]

Not really, it was a federal military fort.

Let's set Ft Sumter aside for a moment. In the months preceding it, the Confederacy created a rival War Department south of the 35th parallel, Confederate troops seized a number of federal military installations and other property, and thousands of US soldiers defected. Might those actions have been construed as hostile acts? Can anyone honestly say in light of all that, that Lincoln and other federal officials were not compelled by a perception of their Constitutional duty to respond? The government showed amazing constraint leading up to Ft Sumter, including sending unarmed resupply ships. When Beauregard opened fire, Ft Sumter merely served as the final straw.

[Magox]

The line of conversation I took issue with was the one surrounding this post:

 

 

It seems to imply that Lincoln's illegal actions were done for humanitarian reasons. I strongly disagree with that. But I've said what I have to say on that issue

 

I suppose it was this line that rankled your feathers, even though you were pretty miffed before this statement.

 

I don't dispute what Lincoln did was technically unlawful, but he did it for what the vast majority of American's and just about anyone else that is familiar with the Civil War would consider to be noble.

 

 

If you read that in a vacuum, then I could see how you could come to that conclusion. But it wasn't incorrect. Most American's DO view what Lincoln did as noble, whether you believe that or not.

 

If you go back and read (which I highly recommend you don't waste any further time on it) what I wrote in chronological order, was that the conversation began again for me when I basically indirectly called out Jboy for his moronic 20-30 year slave statement, and that the Civil War did more good than harm for African Americans and the country.

 

For the life of me, I don't know why that could possibly be something that offends you, but it obviously did. And from there the conversation morphed into the alleged unconstitutional basis of Lincoln's actions. The argument, while I acknowledged that I could understand the opposing view of the constitutional case that was being made, my views was that the actions of the Confederacy merited action from the North to override that argument.

 

Clearly, if someone makes a moral case, they are a "touchy, feely" sort of person with estrogen coming out their !@#$. Obviously, and not saying you, but that is caveman talk. I don't take that personally considering the sources. But, I thought it was worth mentioning.

 

So the discussion between us was that it was the Constitution and the protocol of the branches of argument VS. the immorality of the positions held by the confederacy.

 

Somewhere lost in the argument, you guys or you anyway believed that I was saying that Lincoln in all his benevolent might solely went to war to free the slaves. That's not what I said. I said that the stated goal was to preserve the union, but that the impetus for the war was the Confederacies intransigent stance on slavery. And that the State's Rights argument was the mechanism used by most of the states that seceded from the Union to defend their rights to have slaves.

 

That at the core of the entire conflict was slavery.

[Azalin]

 

re gun laws, the specifics re straw gun purchases are not key to my argument. the fact that gun shows and flea markets are the centers for most of this activity is:

 

:Gun shows and flea markets are a “major venue for illegal trafficking”⁸ and thus have been the target of law enforcement trafficking and straw purchasing investigations. During ATF’s investigations of gun shows, the agency found that FFLs committed numerous federal crimes at shows, including facilitating straw purchases.⁹ Subsequent ATF investigations at gun shows from 2004 – 2006 uncovered “widespread” straw purchasing at shows, where guns were diverted to “convicted felons and local and international gangs.”^10"

 

^{http://smartgunlaws.org/straw-purchases-policy-summary/}

 

If dealers are selling firearms without doing background checks, then they need to be arrested and do time. The vast majority of dealers at gun shows comply with the law and do not sell any firearms without running a background check. The only people at gun shows & flea markets not required to perform background checks are private citizens.