Are stricter gun laws, BANS coming to the land of the free?

[Beetlegeuse]

The thing you probably don't realize (unless you live among "gun guys") is that the vast majority of defensive gun uses that don't involve firing a shot go unreported. Because gun owners know that bringing the police into the situation might well get them gefukt even if they did nothing wrong. So somebody who averts a conflict just by flashing the 'ol roscoe probably is going to find someplace else to be in a big hurry to avoid becoming the subject of police curiosity. Because you can get arrested even if you didn't do a damn thing wrong, but it's still going to cost you a bondsman's pound of flesh and a lawyer's fees to get the judge to admit that the cop was wrong.

Armed Citizen Uses Rifle To Stop Attempted Mass Shooting

A shooting in Fort Smith, Arkansas that left an elderly woman dead could have had many more victims, according to neighbors, if an armed citizen hadn’t stepped up and put down the killer on Saturday morning....


It happens more than you know.

[Beetlegeuse]

Purely a myth. Good guys with guns NEVER come riding in on a white horse to save the day. EVER.

Armed Washington state man shoots, kills attacker targeting neighbors, police say

A Washington state man used his own gun to save his neighbors, by shooting and killing a man who police say was going on a violent rampage armed with a metal baton.

Police responded to the scene in Everett around 3:30 p.m. last Monday regarding a report of an "assault with a weapon."

The arriving officers discovered a man in his early 30s who had been shot, Everett police said. He later died from his injuries at a hospital.

Witnesses told police the man was walking his dog around the Silver Lake neighborhood when he started yelling and became aggressive toward people – including a grandmother and her young granddaughter.

Several bystanders tried to intervene but the man pepper-sprayed them and struck them with a metal baton, police said. One of the interveners was armed and shot the man twice.

The shooter was detained and was cooperative with investigators, police said. Everett Animal Control took possession of the dog for safekeeping.

Fox News reached out to the Everett Police Department who said that the investigation was ongoing and would reveal more details at a later date. No charges have been filed against the man who shot the attacker.

Everett is located in northwestern Washington, about 30 miles north of Seattle.

[Beetlegeuse]

Ppfffftttt!!!! Next you'll be trying to tell me you need guns to defend your family from wild animals 'n shit!

DEWD! Where can I get an oh-zee of watch you been smokin'?

[Beetlegeuse]

The man who Chairman Xiden has nominated to be the new head of the ATF wants to ban "assault weapons" but he can't define what one is.



Every weapon ever made was made for assaulting. Period. Full stop.



The gun-grabbing hoplophobes only use the term as a cudgel to attack whatever design feature offends their sensitive nature at that moment. The simple fact is that most of the pieces they deem most "dangerous" don't have a damn thing to do with the weapon's lethality.




We MUST ban barrel shrouds ... and the shoulder thing that goes up.

Please, for the sake of the children, we must ban TSTTGU.

[almostgone]

Lmao ....tsttgu.

[wango]

This Cassidy didn’t need a Sundance Kid. But, you can’t say he wasn’t an equal opportunity mass killer. Rest In Peace: Paul, Taptedeep, Adrian, Jose, Timothy, Michael, Abdolvahab & Lars.

[Beetlegeuse]

Lmao ....tsttgu.

Tucker Carlson did a "walk-on" with YouTuber and gun-guy extraordinaire Hickok45 and his son, John, where they get to the bottom of the TSTTGU.




Apparently Tucker has a full segment about the LIES the hoplophobes spread about the AR-15, and Greg Kinman (Hickok45) is the chief witness for the prosecution. It's on Fox Originals, which I don't have a subscription to and can't (yet) find a bootleg copy at "the usual sources," but eventually I'm confident it will turn up. In the meanwhile, there's a 71-second promo here.

[almostgone]

LOL, I thought it originated with someone seeing the hinged butt plate on a hog.


Good video. Haven't watched Hickok45 in a while. That's actually the first time I've seen him with his son. All of the ones I've seen he was solo except for camera operator and often you would hear his neighbor banging away in the distance.

[Beetlegeuse]

Bingo!

Found it on Bitchute. Watch it now before Fox makes them take it down. It's also .

Tucker Carlson Originals AR-15: Under Assault

[BuzzardMarinePumper]

I don't think they want to control people any more than republicans want to control you by lying to you, making it harder to vote, and telling you that a fair election was fraudulent.

If anything, liberals and democrats in general want equal rights for everyone - but that means we have to play along nicely. The people who don't own guns and are not interested would tolerate them so long as they aren't used to harm innocent people. The same people who don't own guns understand that a knife is not the same as a gun, because a knife has other purposes besides killing and that a knife cannot be wielded and used to kill at the same speed and accuracy as a gun.

Additionally, a person not into guns may look at statistics and compare how many people have been protected by civilian assault rifle ownership vs how many were killed by civilian assault rifle violence. They would probably see that there are hardly any lives saved by an assault rifle, but many lives taken.

On top of that they could look at countries like Australia, where after assault rifles were banned, there hasn't been another mass shooting since.

So, I don't think you can say that democrats want to control people by taking their guns. That could only be true if they themselves owned guns but didn't want anyone else to own them. No, many people (probably the majority) don't even want to own assault rifles, or have the possibility that someone may own one and decide to shoot a bunch of people. Has nothing to do with control and everything to do with feeling safe in our society. Again, I can see both sides because I do and have owned hand guns.

As a former combat US Marine I have a historical fact to share that most military ppl learn as a recruit . Gun control of any kind point blank period is in direct violation of the 2nd amendment ? Why you may wonder ? I did not write the 2nd amendment and I cannot pick and choose what I want to like or dislike about the 2nd amendment . It was well thought out by many good men who had just sacrificed all they had to create this GREAT NATION , with wisdom and discussion they wrote the 2nd amendment for one reason ! There are many paper written back in the time regarding this amendment (The Jefferson Papers ) ( James Madison Papers ) Many more ! So opiniated young men I challenge you to educate yourselves as opposed to being democratic or republican and stop repeating what the talking heads on TV pour into you brain . Lies can never change facts . But a lie told long enough ppl begin to believe . Never give up the right to be free and say NO to the govt and stop looking for govt to take care of you . I am a part of neither party and closer to Librarian , but not even that I am a purist ? A Constitutionalist -- Give me liberty or give me death I will die a free man !

There have been crazies mass killings since the beginning of time before guns of any type . Point in statement is the 2nd amendment and it's rights given to a fee republic of ppl has noting to do with mass shootings multi round mags or the way a rifle looks ! Bottom line is the 2nd amendment was written so free men would have equal weaponry NEAR equal to the US Govt. for the purpose of protecting our rights as we the ppl to actually defend ourselves against an over reaching and out of control Govt. ........ Much like what we have now . Look how easily the Covid 19 scare changed our lives through Govt control . What if this is a test run and near required vaccines . = to near martial law ( Like what I say or not ) Any gun a free man owns is not intentioned by the 2nd amendment for any other reason than to keep and save our liberties and is rightfully owned with the intent to keep all men free ! End of discussion !

[BuzzardMarinePumper]

We had a war in this country once because one side believed very strongly in something (which was -- at the time -- both legal and constitutionally-protected) that the other side wanted to outlaw. And those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.


FBI Stats Show Knives Kill Far More People Than Rifles In America – It’s Not Even Close

If there sir you are referring to the War Between the States ? It was not fought over slavery ! It was fought over states rights to govern themselves ! Lincoln whos great speech the Proclamation Declaration Was never even seen come to pass by Lincoln until way after the war ended . Do some real history about that war and you will see as usual the USA attacked a Sovereign Nation ? Yes the south went through the US Congress and legally seceded from the union . They were an independent Nation not a rebel nation as history has taught us and the USA started the War with another nation as we usually by pushing the limits of another nation by drawing fire in SC and the the money wrath and industrial Notch came down on the south ....... Oh and just for you socially taught folks that have been publicly educated lacking true facts and do no real history research ......... There were more Irish slaves at the date of the War Between the States than Black ....... Check that one out and prove me wrong if you so desire with facts not repeating BS public education or talking heads

[Beetlegeuse]

If there sir you are referring to the War Between the States ? It was not fought over slavery ! It was fought over states rights to govern themselves !

Oh, lordie, I as hoping I wouldn't have to type this much today ...

I didn't say the war was fought over slavery, I said it was caused by slavery. It's not the same thing. The Great War was caused by a Yugoslav nationalist assassinating the heir to the throne of Autro-Hungarian Empire but the war wasn't fought over Princip's assassination of Archduke Ferdinand. It was fought in part over an interconnected series of treaties of mutual support, and the rest was a family squabble because most of the monarchs of Europe were cousins, descendants of old Queen Vic. In fact back then it often was called "The Cousin's War."

I can't see that there was any other weight issue looming that might have precipitated a shooting war between the two factions. If there had been no slavery, I doubt the tensions between the two factions ever would have risen so high as to come to blows. Therefore it was the war's cause, but not why it was fought.


And I beg to differ about States Rights. The single most important factor driving the prosecution of The Late Unpleasantness ... was Sectionalism.

Because different parts of the country tended to be settled by peoples from the same region in Europe, they tended to be fairly homogeneous in culture and political ideology. They came to America with great dreams and aspirations of what the proper path of their new nation should be, and they resented anyone with differening viewpoints. Sometimes strongly.

Plus their hereditary grievances also made the voyage with them from the old world to the new. The South was settled mostly by immigrants from Scotland and Ireland, and Englishmen of Anglo-Saxon descent from the western counties (Wales & Cornwall). The North was populated mostly with immigrants from Germany, the Netherlands and the eastern counties of England, men of Norman ancestry.

So most (white European) Southerners were from places in the British Isles where the common sentiment was that "their people" had been being persecuted by the Norman (London) English for centuries. And the Norman English thought that the Cornish, the Welsh, the Scots and the Irish were all a bunch of slackers, ne'er-do-wells and borned troublemakers who were not deserving of the success they had found in America.

So it can't be overstated that there was a genuine animosity in some circles both in the North and in the South against the other. So strong that many Northerners could not be bothered to object when Mr. Lincoln started his war against the prodigal South. If the sentiment hadn't been so widespread in the North that the South deserved the comeuppance that Lincoln was delivering, they could have raised such a great hue and cry that Lincoln would have had no choice but cease prosecuting the war. If they hadn't so despised not the Southerners but their ancestors, it would have never have become the protracted bloodbath that it did.

That animosity was wherein the North found the iron will so slaughter so many fellow Americans. That the Southerners might have believed that they were defending their rights didn't enter into it because it wasn't their rights the North was waging war against.

But that's a complex issue and I don't feel like typing that much so I'll close this post with two thoughts.

It is simplistic (and, to an extent, sophistic) to attribute the cause of any war to a moral issue because somebody always feels they were morally wronged before the war began, wronged by the commencement of the war, wronged by the prosecution of the war, wronged by the cessation of the war, and wronged by the peace that was imposed after the war was ended. But wars rarely -- if ever -- are fought for any reason but one.

Money. Or finances in general, to include land and natural resources.


Lincoln's speeches and writings make it clear he had no particular affection for black folk, and in many cases his attitudes appear to 21st Century eyes to be virulently racist. Whatever interest he might have had in ending slavery was less for the benefit of the slave than for the redemption of the slave-owner, whatever color they might be, because he thought the practice of owning slaves to be corrupting and morally debasing. His was chiefly opposed to slavery because of what it did to the slave owners, not because of what it was taking from the slaves.

In fact, Lincoln once remarked that as a child his father hired him out as essentially a bond servant, a "temporary slave." Which he recognized his father had done not out of spite or neglect but as a means of survival. So he knew first hand that some conditions were worse than slavery and that worse conditions sometimes could be alleviated by it (and slavery in fact universally tended to be a more temporary and fungible condition than it became in America after the importation of slaves was outlawed in 1808).

The simple fact is Lincoln knew he could not let the Southern states go without risking the ruination of the Northern economy.


The South hadn't got rich selling its goods to the North, it got rich selling them to the rest of the world, and that could not have happened without Northern complicity because the South had no shipbuilders and few deep water harbors that were not subject to violent seasonal storms. And virtually every major industrialist or capitalist in the North was involved in some aspect of the foreign trade of cotton or tobacco and so was complicit in the practice of slavery.

In 1860, 75% of all American exports (in value) came from the Southern states. The 10 richest men in America all lived in the Natchez district of Mississippi, and all were cotton farmers.

Cotton was more than just a crop, it was the national currency. Men in Boston wore beaver skin stovepipe hats paid for with money made speculating on cotton futures. Ladies in Philadelphia dressed in Belgian lace paid for with proceeds from building ships to carry Southern cotton to European markets. The social elite in New York City adorned their banquet tables with Garrard silverware paid for by returns on investments in cotton plantations in Mississippi and Alabama.

In 1860, an editorialist for the London Times opined that without King Cotton, "The ships would rot at her docks; grass would grow in Wall Street and Broadway, and the glory of New York, like that of Babylon and Rome, would be numbered with the things of the past. As much as it is linked to the barbaric system of slave labor that raised it, cotton created New York."

"...[C]otton created New York...."

He further posed, “What would New York be without slavery?”

From the turn of the 19th Century until Mr Lincoln started his war, the majority of all federal revenues came just from the export tariffs applied to cotton. When Lincoln was asked in a cabinet meeting some time after the shelling at Fort Sumter why he just didn't bid the Confederacy a fond farewell, there were three independent testimonies that his reply was, "What shall we do for our revenue?"

And in his first inaugural address, Lincoln said, "...In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence; and there shall be none, unless it be forced upon the national authority. The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the government, and to collect the duties and imposts;..."

In other words, give unto Lincoln the things that are Lincoln's and I will have no reason to make war.


Furthermore the, South collectively took active measures on three separate occasions indicating that they were willing to give up slavery in return for being rid of Lincoln.

First, in 1861, before President Buchanan left office, both houses of the US Congress passed (and Buchanan signed) the Corwin Amendment, which proposed a Constitutional Amendment protecting the institution of slavery. President Buchanan signed the bill on 2 March, 1861, at which time all that was necessary for slavery to be constitutionally protected was ratification by 3/4ths of the states.

None of the rebellious states ever considered ratifying the Amendment, despite the fact that it became law a month before hostilities began in earnest. However, there were five non-rebellious states that did ratify it, plus the "Restored Government of Virginia," which was a group of legislators who in the end would lead the partitioning of West Virginia from the Old Dominion.

Presuming that all 11 Confederate states had voted to ratify, and with the admission of Kansas to the Union in 1861, that would have left the Confederacy nine or 10 states short of ratification. So why would they completely ignore the bill's existence? Why not try to persuade some of the remaining states to codify the protection of slavery, when they knew that the alternative path they were pursuing might well lead to war?

The only rational interpretation of their actions is that they preferred no longer to be joined to the United States over all other considerations.

Second, in his 1862 speech marking the first anniversary of his inauguration, some 11 months after the shelling of Ft Sumter, Lincoln held out an olive branch to the Confederacy. He proposed that they rejoin the Union and keep their slaves (no harm, no foul) but that they then would undertake a gradual emancipation all slaves (and their descendants) to be completed before the end of the 19th Century.

Rejoin the Union and keep your slaves, at least for a while. He got no formal response from anyone in the Confederate government.

And thirdly -- and this is I find incontrovertible proof that Confederates States prioritized being rid of Lincoln over all else -- is Duncan Keener.

Whom you probably never heard of. Until now.

Keener was a Louisiana State Representative in the Confederate Congress. In 1863 he approached Confederate President Davis with the idea of enlisting support for the Confederate cause -- at the very least, recognition of the nation's legitimacy -- from France and England. But since neither France nor England allowed slavery, he and Davis both recognized that they would have to use slavery as a bargaining chip.

Keener first approached Napoleon III, Emperor of France (emperor one week, president the next, then back to emperor, and so-on). He convinced Napoleon III (nephew of the Napoleon Bonaparte) to recognize the Confederacy in return for it abolishing slavery by 1865!!!

Got that? They official stance of the Confederate States was that they would not agree to rejoin the Union and keep their slaves (at least temporarily) but that they would emancipate all of their slaves, and in less that two years time, in return for independence from the United States.

The Emperor of France agreed but his agreement had one proviso, that being that England must also agree.

But the sitting British Prime Minister, John Henry Temple (Lord Palmerston) was not particularly fond of the former colonies so, content to watch the dis-united States stew in its own juices, he refused to receive Keener as an envoy of the CSA.


So yes, BuzzardMarinePumper, I had a passing familiarity with the fact that the war wasn't fought over slavery, but that doesn't alter the fact that without slavery the war almost certainly never would have happened.

But Sectionalism, a general and deep-seated spite between Old World ethnic groups, that was the reason that what might have been a short and rather bloodless conflict devolved into the bloodiest war the Western Hemisphere yet has seen. Not States Rights.

[Beetlegeuse]

But ... but ... this never happens!

Armed Teacher Thwarts Kidnapping At Utah Elementary School

Since 2003, Utah has allowed school staffers with concealed carry licenses to lawfully carry on the job, and while we don’t really have any idea of how many teachers and staff across the state exercise their right to carry a firearm in defense of their students and themselves, we know that there’s at least one teacher in the town of Ogden who’s carrying while on campus, because on Tuesday afternoon they prevented a kidnapping from a school playground.

Ira Cox-Berry, 41, approached and grabbed a student, an 11-year-old girl, who was playing on the playground, police said. Cox-Berry allegedly pulled the girl away as if he was trying to leave with her, but a school employee approached Cox-Berry and demanded that he leave the school.

Cox-Berry briefly let go of the girl, and the employee was able to get the children who were also nearby into a classroom, according to a police affidavit. Police say there were 19 other children nearby at the time.

Cox-Berry then approached the building and started punching a window in an apparent attempt to get inside, police said. The employee then produced a firearm and held off the man while calling 911.

Critics of armed school staffers often claim that there’s no way educators could have enough training to actually protect students, that the presence of lawfully-carried guns only increases the risks of others being accidentally injured, and trigger-happy teachers could turn their campus into a Wild West war zone. Of course they don’t have any evidence for any of their arguments, because the reality is that none of the scary predictions from the opponents of armed school staffers have ever come to pass.

In this case, the staffer acted completely rationally and professionally. They didn’t even display their firearm until the potential kidnapping situation had escalated into violence. Far from the “shoot first, ask questions later” mentality that anti-gun activists claim is inherent among those of us who exercise our right to carry, this staffer demonstrated restraint and caution; shepherding the students under their care into a classroom while keeping an eye out on the stranger. Only when the suspect tried to gain entrance to the school did the staffer pull out their firearm, and even then, the trigger was never pulled.

Lt. Brian Eynon with the Ogden Police Department praised the school employee after the suspect was taken into custody....

[Hughinn]

Joe Bidens ATF appointee is asked to define"assault weapon" after he states he supports banning them. But he can't even define what one is.

Watch towards the end.

https://youtu.be/nwB5SirsZUk

[BuzzardMarinePumper]

Oh, lordie, I as hoping I wouldn't have to type this much today ...

I didn't say the war was fought over slavery, I said it was caused by slavery. It's not the same thing. The Great War was caused by a Yugoslav nationalist assassinating the heir to the throne of Autro-Hungarian Empire but the war wasn't fought over Princip's assassination of Archduke Ferdinand. It was fought in part over an interconnected series of treaties of mutual support, and the rest was a family squabble because most of the monarchs of Europe were cousins, descendants of old Queen Vic. In fact back then it often was called "The Cousin's War."

I can't see that there was any other weight issue looming that might have precipitated a shooting war between the two factions. If there had been no slavery, I doubt the tensions between the two factions ever would have risen so high as to come to blows. Therefore it was the war's cause, but not why it was fought.


And I beg to differ about States Rights. The single most important factor driving the prosecution of The Late Unpleasantness ... was Sectionalism.

Because different parts of the country tended to be settled by peoples from the same region in Europe, they tended to be fairly homogeneous in culture and political ideology. They came to America with great dreams and aspirations of what the proper path of their new nation should be, and they resented anyone with differening viewpoints. Sometimes strongly.

Plus their hereditary grievances also made the voyage with them from the old world to the new. The South was settled mostly by immigrants from Scotland and Ireland, and Englishmen of Anglo-Saxon descent from the western counties (Wales & Cornwall). The North was populated mostly with immigrants from Germany, the Netherlands and the eastern counties of England, men of Norman ancestry.

So most (white European) Southerners were from places in the British Isles where the common sentiment was that "their people" had been being persecuted by the Norman (London) English for centuries. And the Norman English thought that the Cornish, the Welsh, the Scots and the Irish were all a bunch of slackers, ne'er-do-wells and borned troublemakers who were not deserving of the success they had found in America.

So it can't be overstated that there was a genuine animosity in some circles both in the North and in the South against the other. So strong that many Northerners could not be bothered to object when Mr. Lincoln started his war against the prodigal South. If the sentiment hadn't been so widespread in the North that the South deserved the comeuppance that Lincoln was delivering, they could have raised such a great hue and cry that Lincoln would have had no choice but cease prosecuting the war. If they hadn't so despised not the Southerners but their ancestors, it would have never have become the protracted bloodbath that it did.

That animosity was wherein the North found the iron will so slaughter so many fellow Americans. That the Southerners might have believed that they were defending their rights didn't enter into it because it wasn't their rights the North was waging war against.

But that's a complex issue and I don't feel like typing that much so I'll close this post with two thoughts.

It is simplistic (and, to an extent, sophistic) to attribute the cause of any war to a moral issue because somebody always feels they were morally wronged before the war began, wronged by the commencement of the war, wronged by the prosecution of the war, wronged by the cessation of the war, and wronged by the peace that was imposed after the war was ended. But wars rarely -- if ever -- are fought for any reason but one.

Money. Or finances in general, to include land and natural resources.


Lincoln's speeches and writings make it clear he had no particular affection for black folk, and in many cases his attitudes appear to 21st Century eyes to be virulently racist. Whatever interest he might have had in ending slavery was less for the benefit of the slave than for the redemption of the slave-owner, whatever color they might be, because he thought the practice of owning slaves to be corrupting and morally debasing. His was chiefly opposed to slavery because of what it did to the slave owners, not because of what it was taking from the slaves.

In fact, Lincoln once remarked that as a child his father hired him out as essentially a bond servant, a "temporary slave." Which he recognized his father had done not out of spite or neglect but as a means of survival. So he knew first hand that some conditions were worse than slavery and that worse conditions sometimes could be alleviated by it (and slavery in fact universally tended to be a more temporary and fungible condition than it became in America after the importation of slaves was outlawed in 1808).

The simple fact is Lincoln knew he could not let the Southern states go without risking the ruination of the Northern economy.


The South hadn't got rich selling its goods to the North, it got rich selling them to the rest of the world, and that could not have happened without Northern complicity because the South had no shipbuilders and few deep water harbors that were not subject to violent seasonal storms. And virtually every major industrialist or capitalist in the North was involved in some aspect of the foreign trade of cotton or tobacco and so was complicit in the practice of slavery.

In 1860, 75% of all American exports (in value) came from the Southern states. The 10 richest men in America all lived in the Natchez district of Mississippi, and all were cotton farmers.

Cotton was more than just a crop, it was the national currency. Men in Boston wore beaver skin stovepipe hats paid for with money made speculating on cotton futures. Ladies in Philadelphia dressed in Belgian lace paid for with proceeds from building ships to carry Southern cotton to European markets. The social elite in New York City adorned their banquet tables with Garrard silverware paid for by returns on investments in cotton plantations in Mississippi and Alabama.

In 1860, an editorialist for the London Times opined that without King Cotton, "The ships would rot at her docks; grass would grow in Wall Street and Broadway, and the glory of New York, like that of Babylon and Rome, would be numbered with the things of the past. As much as it is linked to the barbaric system of slave labor that raised it, cotton created New York."

"...[C]otton created New York...."

He further posed, “What would New York be without slavery?”

From the turn of the 19th Century until Mr Lincoln started his war, the majority of all federal revenues came just from the export tariffs applied to cotton. When Lincoln was asked in a cabinet meeting some time after the shelling at Fort Sumter why he just didn't bid the Confederacy a fond farewell, there were three independent testimonies that his reply was, "What shall we do for our revenue?"

And in his first inaugural address, Lincoln said, "...In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence; and there shall be none, unless it be forced upon the national authority. The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the government, and to collect the duties and imposts;..."

In other words, give unto Lincoln the things that are Lincoln's and I will have no reason to make war.


Furthermore the, South collectively took active measures on three separate occasions indicating that they were willing to give up slavery in return for being rid of Lincoln.

First, in 1861, before President Buchanan left office, both houses of the US Congress passed (and Buchanan signed) the Corwin Amendment, which proposed a Constitutional Amendment protecting the institution of slavery. President Buchanan signed the bill on 2 March, 1861, at which time all that was necessary for slavery to be constitutionally protected was ratification by 3/4ths of the states.

None of the rebellious states ever considered ratifying the Amendment, despite the fact that it became law a month before hostilities began in earnest. However, there were five non-rebellious states that did ratify it, plus the "Restored Government of Virginia," which was a group of legislators who in the end would lead the partitioning of West Virginia from the Old Dominion.

Presuming that all 11 Confederate states had voted to ratify, and with the admission of Kansas to the Union in 1861, that would have left the Confederacy nine or 10 states short of ratification. So why would they completely ignore the bill's existence? Why not try to persuade some of the remaining states to codify the protection of slavery, when they knew that the alternative path they were pursuing might well lead to war?

The only rational interpretation of their actions is that they preferred no longer to be joined to the United States over all other considerations.

Second, in his 1862 speech marking the first anniversary of his inauguration, some 11 months after the shelling of Ft Sumter, Lincoln held out an olive branch to the Confederacy. He proposed that they rejoin the Union and keep their slaves (no harm, no foul) but that they then would undertake a gradual emancipation all slaves (and their descendants) to be completed before the end of the 19th Century.

Rejoin the Union and keep your slaves, at least for a while. He got no formal response from anyone in the Confederate government.

And thirdly -- and this is I find incontrovertible proof that Confederates States prioritized being rid of Lincoln over all else -- is Duncan Keener.

Whom you probably never heard of. Until now.

Keener was a Louisiana State Representative in the Confederate Congress. In 1863 he approached Confederate President Davis with the idea of enlisting support for the Confederate cause -- at the very least, recognition of the nation's legitimacy -- from France and England. But since neither France nor England allowed slavery, he and Davis both recognized that they would have to use slavery as a bargaining chip.

Keener first approached Napoleon III, Emperor of France (emperor one week, president the next, then back to emperor, and so-on). He convinced Napoleon III (nephew of the Napoleon Bonaparte) to recognize the Confederacy in return for it abolishing slavery by 1865!!!

Got that? They official stance of the Confederate States was that they would not agree to rejoin the Union and keep their slaves (at least temporarily) but that they would emancipate all of their slaves, and in less that two years time, in return for independence from the United States.

The Emperor of France agreed but his agreement had one proviso, that being that England must also agree.

But the sitting British Prime Minister, John Henry Temple (Lord Palmerston) was not particularly fond of the former colonies so, content to watch the dis-united States stew in its own juices, he refused to receive Keener as an envoy of the CSA.


So yes, BuzzardMarinePumper, I had a passing familiarity with the fact that the war wasn't fought over slavery, but that doesn't alter the fact that without slavery the war almost certainly never would have happened.

But Sectionalism, a general and deep-seated spite between Old World ethnic groups, that was the reason that what might have been a short and rather bloodless conflict devolved into the bloodiest war the Western Hemisphere yet has seen. Not States Rights.

I like the effort and much more knowledge than most but still missing facts and not totally true . In legality realms If all is not true ......NON IS TRUE ..... Soooooooo sicne this is sprinkled with partial truths that I do agree on many of the statement are opinions and not facts so therefore not admissible as truth to over turn . I just got out of a coma and dare not type so much . But as I stated partial truths that I agree with and many opinions I disagree with as an astute researcher of the War Between the States . The USA attacked a a legal vested nation they had no business messing in their National affairs or even asking them to reunite with the ( Confederated Americas ) Research how many names has the USA clamed over the past 250 years ?

Oh P.S. Great write up just missing a few very important points ! Thank you for proving part of on point and missing the curt !

[Beetlegeuse]

I like the effort and much more knowledge than most but still missing facts and not totally true . In legality realms If all is not true ......NON IS TRUE ..... Soooooooo sicne this is sprinkled with partial truths that I do agree on many of the statement are opinions and not facts so therefore not admissible as truth to over turn . I just got out of a coma and dare not type so much . But as I stated partial truths that I agree with and many opinions I disagree with as an astute researcher of the War Between the States . The USA attacked a a legal vested nation they had no business messing in their National affairs or even asking them to reunite with the ( Confederated Americas ) Research how many names has the USA clamed over the past 250 years ?

Oh P.S. Great write up just missing a few very important points ! Thank you for proving part of on point and missing the curt !

Well, the certain way to prevent anyone challenging your facts ... is not to present any.

[BuzzardMarinePumper]

Well, the certain way to prevent anyone challenging your facts ... is not to present any.

I see you best effort and call with the mind of a post coma history buff . I will revisit when I can present more facts and for that I apologize for my short coming ! But I will add 61 years of not stating false truths with the intent to insight but to enlighten

[BuzzardMarinePumper]

Oh, lordie, I as hoping I wouldn't have to type this much today ...

I didn't say the war was fought over slavery, I said it was caused by slavery. It's not the same thing. The Great War was caused by a Yugoslav nationalist assassinating the heir to the throne of Autro-Hungarian Empire but the war wasn't fought over Princip's assassination of Archduke Ferdinand. It was fought in part over an interconnected series of treaties of mutual support, and the rest was a family squabble because most of the monarchs of Europe were cousins, descendants of old Queen Vic. In fact back then it often was called "The Cousin's War."

I can't see that there was any other weight issue looming that might have precipitated a shooting war between the two factions. If there had been no slavery, I doubt the tensions between the two factions ever would have risen so high as to come to blows. Therefore it was the war's cause, but not why it was fought.


And I beg to differ about States Rights. The single most important factor driving the prosecution of The Late Unpleasantness ... was Sectionalism.

Because different parts of the country tended to be settled by peoples from the same region in Europe, they tended to be fairly homogeneous in culture and political ideology. They came to America with great dreams and aspirations of what the proper path of their new nation should be, and they resented anyone with differening viewpoints. Sometimes strongly.

Plus their hereditary grievances also made the voyage with them from the old world to the new. The South was settled mostly by immigrants from Scotland and Ireland, and Englishmen of Anglo-Saxon descent from the western counties (Wales & Cornwall). The North was populated mostly with immigrants from Germany, the Netherlands and the eastern counties of England, men of Norman ancestry.

So most (white European) Southerners were from places in the British Isles where the common sentiment was that "their people" had been being persecuted by the Norman (London) English for centuries. And the Norman English thought that the Cornish, the Welsh, the Scots and the Irish were all a bunch of slackers, ne'er-do-wells and borned troublemakers who were not deserving of the success they had found in America.

So it can't be overstated that there was a genuine animosity in some circles both in the North and in the South against the other. So strong that many Northerners could not be bothered to object when Mr. Lincoln started his war against the prodigal South. If the sentiment hadn't been so widespread in the North that the South deserved the comeuppance that Lincoln was delivering, they could have raised such a great hue and cry that Lincoln would have had no choice but cease prosecuting the war. If they hadn't so despised not the Southerners but their ancestors, it would have never have become the protracted bloodbath that it did.

That animosity was wherein the North found the iron will so slaughter so many fellow Americans. That the Southerners might have believed that they were defending their rights didn't enter into it because it wasn't their rights the North was waging war against.

But that's a complex issue and I don't feel like typing that much so I'll close this post with two thoughts.

It is simplistic (and, to an extent, sophistic) to attribute the cause of any war to a moral issue because somebody always feels they were morally wronged before the war began, wronged by the commencement of the war, wronged by the prosecution of the war, wronged by the cessation of the war, and wronged by the peace that was imposed after the war was ended. But wars rarely -- if ever -- are fought for any reason but one.

Money. Or finances in general, to include land and natural resources.


Lincoln's speeches and writings make it clear he had no particular affection for black folk, and in many cases his attitudes appear to 21st Century eyes to be virulently racist. Whatever interest he might have had in ending slavery was less for the benefit of the slave than for the redemption of the slave-owner, whatever color they might be, because he thought the practice of owning slaves to be corrupting and morally debasing. His was chiefly opposed to slavery because of what it did to the slave owners, not because of what it was taking from the slaves.

In fact, Lincoln once remarked that as a child his father hired him out as essentially a bond servant, a "temporary slave." Which he recognized his father had done not out of spite or neglect but as a means of survival. So he knew first hand that some conditions were worse than slavery and that worse conditions sometimes could be alleviated by it (and slavery in fact universally tended to be a more temporary and fungible condition than it became in America after the importation of slaves was outlawed in 1808).

The simple fact is Lincoln knew he could not let the Southern states go without risking the ruination of the Northern economy.


The South hadn't got rich selling its goods to the North, it got rich selling them to the rest of the world, and that could not have happened without Northern complicity because the South had no shipbuilders and few deep water harbors that were not subject to violent seasonal storms. And virtually every major industrialist or capitalist in the North was involved in some aspect of the foreign trade of cotton or tobacco and so was complicit in the practice of slavery.

In 1860, 75% of all American exports (in value) came from the Southern states. The 10 richest men in America all lived in the Natchez district of Mississippi, and all were cotton farmers.

Cotton was more than just a crop, it was the national currency. Men in Boston wore beaver skin stovepipe hats paid for with money made speculating on cotton futures. Ladies in Philadelphia dressed in Belgian lace paid for with proceeds from building ships to carry Southern cotton to European markets. The social elite in New York City adorned their banquet tables with Garrard silverware paid for by returns on investments in cotton plantations in Mississippi and Alabama.

In 1860, an editorialist for the London Times opined that without King Cotton, "The ships would rot at her docks; grass would grow in Wall Street and Broadway, and the glory of New York, like that of Babylon and Rome, would be numbered with the things of the past. As much as it is linked to the barbaric system of slave labor that raised it, cotton created New York."

"...[C]otton created New York...."

He further posed, “What would New York be without slavery?”

From the turn of the 19th Century until Mr Lincoln started his war, the majority of all federal revenues came just from the export tariffs applied to cotton. When Lincoln was asked in a cabinet meeting some time after the shelling at Fort Sumter why he just didn't bid the Confederacy a fond farewell, there were three independent testimonies that his reply was, "What shall we do for our revenue?"

And in his first inaugural address, Lincoln said, "...In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence; and there shall be none, unless it be forced upon the national authority. The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the government, and to collect the duties and imposts;..."

In other words, give unto Lincoln the things that are Lincoln's and I will have no reason to make war.


Furthermore the, South collectively took active measures on three separate occasions indicating that they were willing to give up slavery in return for being rid of Lincoln.

First, in 1861, before President Buchanan left office, both houses of the US Congress passed (and Buchanan signed) the Corwin Amendment, which proposed a Constitutional Amendment protecting the institution of slavery. President Buchanan signed the bill on 2 March, 1861, at which time all that was necessary for slavery to be constitutionally protected was ratification by 3/4ths of the states.

None of the rebellious states ever considered ratifying the Amendment, despite the fact that it became law a month before hostilities began in earnest. However, there were five non-rebellious states that did ratify it, plus the "Restored Government of Virginia," which was a group of legislators who in the end would lead the partitioning of West Virginia from the Old Dominion.

Presuming that all 11 Confederate states had voted to ratify, and with the admission of Kansas to the Union in 1861, that would have left the Confederacy nine or 10 states short of ratification. So why would they completely ignore the bill's existence? Why not try to persuade some of the remaining states to codify the protection of slavery, when they knew that the alternative path they were pursuing might well lead to war?

The only rational interpretation of their actions is that they preferred no longer to be joined to the United States over all other considerations.

Second, in his 1862 speech marking the first anniversary of his inauguration, some 11 months after the shelling of Ft Sumter, Lincoln held out an olive branch to the Confederacy. He proposed that they rejoin the Union and keep their slaves (no harm, no foul) but that they then would undertake a gradual emancipation all slaves (and their descendants) to be completed before the end of the 19th Century.

Rejoin the Union and keep your slaves, at least for a while. He got no formal response from anyone in the Confederate government.

And thirdly -- and this is I find incontrovertible proof that Confederates States prioritized being rid of Lincoln over all else -- is Duncan Keener.

Whom you probably never heard of. Until now.

Keener was a Louisiana State Representative in the Confederate Congress. In 1863 he approached Confederate President Davis with the idea of enlisting support for the Confederate cause -- at the very least, recognition of the nation's legitimacy -- from France and England. But since neither France nor England allowed slavery, he and Davis both recognized that they would have to use slavery as a bargaining chip.

Keener first approached Napoleon III, Emperor of France (emperor one week, president the next, then back to emperor, and so-on). He convinced Napoleon III (nephew of the Napoleon Bonaparte) to recognize the Confederacy in return for it abolishing slavery by 1865!!!

Got that? They official stance of the Confederate States was that they would not agree to rejoin the Union and keep their slaves (at least temporarily) but that they would emancipate all of their slaves, and in less that two years time, in return for independence from the United States.

The Emperor of France agreed but his agreement had one proviso, that being that England must also agree.

But the sitting British Prime Minister, John Henry Temple (Lord Palmerston) was not particularly fond of the former colonies so, content to watch the dis-united States stew in its own juices, he refused to receive Keener as an envoy of the CSA.


So yes, BuzzardMarinePumper, I had a passing familiarity with the fact that the war wasn't fought over slavery, but that doesn't alter the fact that without slavery the war almost certainly never would have happened.

But Sectionalism, a general and deep-seated spite between Old World ethnic groups, that was the reason that what might have been a short and rather bloodless conflict devolved into the bloodiest war the Western Hemisphere yet has seen. Not States Rights.

This is the purpose of this thread and do I hear rebuttal on this FACT ?

As a former combat US Marine I have a historical fact to share that most military ppl learn as a recruit . Gun control of any kind point blank period is in direct violation of the 2nd amendment ? Why you may wonder ? I did not write the 2nd amendment and I cannot pick and choose what I want to like or dislike about the 2nd amendment . It was well thought out by many good men who had just sacrificed all they had to create this GREAT NATION , with wisdom and discussion they wrote the 2nd amendment for one reason ! There are many paper written back in the time regarding this amendment (The Jefferson Papers ) ( James Madison Papers ) Many more ! So opiniated young men I challenge you to educate yourselves as opposed to being democratic or republican and stop repeating what the talking heads on TV pour into you brain . Lies can never change facts . But a lie told long enough ppl begin to believe . Never give up the right to be free and say NO to the govt and stop looking for govt to take care of you . I am a part of neither party and closer to Librarian , but not even that I am a purist ? A Constitutionalist -- Give me liberty or give me death I will die a free man !

There have been crazies mass killings since the beginning of time before guns of any type . Point in statement is the 2nd amendment and it's rights given to a fee republic of ppl has noting to do with mass shootings multi round mags or the way a rifle looks ! Bottom line is the 2nd amendment was written so free men would have equal weaponry NEAR equal to the US Govt. for the purpose of protecting our rights as we the ppl to actually defend ourselves against an over reaching and out of control Govt. ........ Much like what we have now . Look how easily the Covid 19 scare changed our lives through Govt control . What if this is a test run and near required vaccines . = to near martial law ( Like what I say or not ) Any gun a free man owns is not intentioned by the 2nd amendment for any other reason than to keep and save our liberties and is rightfully owned with the intent to keep all men free ! End of discussion ! SWAK !

[almostgone]

Buzz, I know you've been through a lot, but the guy you're expending so much energy to debate is Pro-2A.

[wango]

Since you all are getting so historical.

Even Jefferson felt that “the dead should not rule the living”. Or this guy, who kind of suggested the need for freedom of speech before it became part of the first amendment.

Damn Buzz, I’m not half as in command of our US history as you are, you are to be commended.

[BuzzardMarinePumper]

Buzz, I know you've been through a lot, but the guy you're expending so much energy to debate is Pro-2A.

All due respects and much more , I am debating with half my brain tied behind my back . This is to exercise my brain WTF is Pro-2A please assist me again to educate me . Thanks .

Pro-2A and Pro Gun ae not even the same I googled it and there is a huge difference and I am far from Pro-2A I am 100% Pro Gun with ) - no limits all the stips and checks the Govt puts on gun ownership is one step close to gun control ! Any swing dick that has the $$$$ should be able to own a gun ...... I was a 3 x felon and had my rights restored . The Judge stated any man that has been a combat Marine would be expected to have a descension or 2 in his past but with maturity USUALLY comes wisdom . If he can krill in combat he should not be denied the right to own a WEAPON !

[almostgone]

All due respects and much more , I am debating with half my brain tied behind my back . This is to exercise my brain WTF is Pro-2A please assist me again to educate me . Thanks .

Pro-2A and Pro Gun ae not even the same I googled it and there is a huge difference and I am far from Pro-2A I am 100% Pro Gun with ) - no limits all the stips and checks the Govt puts on gun ownership is one step close to gun control ! Any swing dick that has the $$$$ should be able to own a gun ...... I was a 3 x felon and had my rights restored . The Judge stated any man that has been a combat Marine would be expected to have a descension or 2 in his past but with maturity USUALLY comes wisdom . If he can krill in combat he should not be denied the right to own a WEAPON !

No problem, Buzz, I know you have had a rough ride, but Pro-2A is the first step in keeping the rights that some of the government officials are trying to legislate away from us now.

Also, please remember that you aren't the only prior service member on the board. I'll leave it at that and respect to you.

Edit: That's the reason for the sanctuary states like SC, Ga., Tex, and so many others. Rights are getting eroded. You have to hold onto to what you currently have before you can work for expanded rights.

[almostgone]

....and by all means exercise your brain, just please don't overdo it. I've been through bacteremia and sepsis. I know how much wind it takes out of your sails.

[The Deadlifting Dog]

With all due respect...

I have never seen a bunch of more paranoid people than the pro-gunners.

There are more guns than people in the US.
We are #1 in the world with guns per capita.

And every single year it's the same old shit... "They're gonna take our guns away..."
And every single year there are more guns in the US.

There are 1.2 guns per person in the US.
Let's say we don't arm those 15yrs old and under along with the blind and felons.
That means everybody has about two guns to shoot at the same time.

Soon people are going to be trying to figure out how to fire a gun with their feet... and bitch that it can't be fully automatic with 2000 magazine capacity.

Seriously...
I am pro gun but the US does have a gun culture problem.

(And yes.. I understand that many guns deaths are caused by gang members.)

They aren't taking your guns away.
And they aren't taking Christmas away either.

I've said it before...
I will gladly place a friendly wager with anyone on this board who thinks they are taking your guns away.
I've yet to have one person take me up on the bet.

[almostgone]

I'm not a betting man, but when I see legislation being introduced regarding restrictions on firearms, proposed tax stamps for ownership of certain firearms, and additional taxes being suggested on ammunition or reloading supplies, then yes, I will speak out loud and long.

[almostgone]

Don't get me wrong, DD, I'm all for responsible forearm ownership, but the current administration has long been vocalizing his desire for AR-15 owners or owners of high capacity magazines to be forced to register with the ATF, and I seriously doubt he's talking a $25 fee. I imagine he'll head straight for the $200 tax stamp per firearm and per magazine.

https://www.atr.org/biden-impose-200-gun-tax?amp

Take a look at HR 5717 that was bought up in 2020....

firearms would be taxable at 30%, and ammunition would be taxable at 50%.

The companion bill S. 3254 wasn't much better.

If it makes you feel better to call me paranoid, so be it.

[The Deadlifting Dog]

I'm not a betting man, but when I see legislation being introduced regarding restrictions on firearms #1, proposed tax stamps for ownership of certain firearms #2, and additional taxes being suggested on ammunition or reloading supplies #2, then yes, I will speak out loud and long.

#1
The 2A says the right to bear arms... does that mean every single weapon imaginable?
Well I think their should be restrictions on certain firearms.
You can't own nuclear arms. Nobody bitches about that.
There has to be a line drawn somewhere.

#2
There are taxes on all sorts of things.
Including food and water.
Why should guns be exempt?

I am not saying people shouldn't voice their opinions.

I am simply stating that many (not all) gun nuts are paranoid about guns being taken away.
For fuck's sake...
We are the most gun infested nation in the world.
We are about the #6th worst nation in the world for gun deaths per capita.
How many guns do we need?

Don't get me wrong, DD, I'm all for responsible forearm ownership, but the current administration has long been vocalizing his desire for AR-15 owners or owners of high capacity magazines to be forced to register with the ATF, and I seriously doubt he's talking a $25 fee. I imagine he'll head straight for the $200 tax stamp per firearm and per magazine.

https://www.atr.org/biden-impose-200-gun-tax?amp

Take a look at HR 5717 that was bought up in 2020....

firearms would be taxable at 30%, and ammunition would be taxable at 50%.

The companion bill S. 3524 wasn't much better.

If it makes you feel better to call me paranoid, so be it.

$200

Please.

You guys shoot $200 of ammo every time you go to the range and you're gonna complain about a $200 tax???

[almostgone]

.. honestly, we don't need new, additional laws. The ATF should stringently enforce what is already in place.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usa...amp/7210266002

[The Deadlifting Dog]

.....

[almostgone]

I'm not getting revved up and ruining my weekend justifying my point of view. I'm quite comfortable with my assessment.

[almostgone]

.$200

Please.

You guys shoot $200 of ammo every time you go to the range and you're gonna complain about a $200 tax???...

Per firearm and per magazine...yep. I'll bitch all day long.

Same as I would about an additional 30% tax on ammo that some states are trying to introduce.

[The Deadlifting Dog]

.. honestly, we don't need new, additional laws. The ATF should stringently enforce what is already in place.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usa...amp/7210266002

Well...

I hope you are correct.

I will admit I am not knowledgeable on the matter. (At least not at much as you...)

[almostgone]

Well...

I hope you are correct.

I will admit I am not knowledgeable on the matter. (At least not at much as you...)

I don't claim to be a expert, but I do try to stay informed.

Again, I am totally for responsible gun ownership and absolutely despise illegal firearm sales.

Edit: I also want to say I respect your viewpoint and your right to state your viewpoint.

[BuzzardMarinePumper]

With all due respect...

I have never seen a bunch of more paranoid people than the pro-gunners.

There are more guns than people in the US.
We are #1 in the world with guns per capita.

And every single year it's the same old shit... "They're gonna take our guns away..."
And every single year there are more guns in the US.

There are 1.2 guns per person in the US.
Let's say we don't arm those 15yrs old and under along with the blind and felons.
That means everybody has about two guns to shoot at the same time.

Soon people are going to be trying to figure out how to fire a gun with their feet... and bitch that it can't be fully automatic with 2000 magazine capacity.

Seriously...
I am pro gun but the US does have a gun culture problem.

(And yes.. I understand that many guns deaths are caused by gang members.)

They aren't taking your guns away.
And they aren't taking Christmas away either.

I've said it before...
I will gladly place a friendly wager with anyone on this board who thinks they are taking your guns away.
I've yet to have one person take me up on the bet.

This is the purpose of this thread and do I hear rebuttal on this FACT ?

As a former combat US Marine I have a historical fact to share that most military ppl learn as a recruit . Gun control of any kind point blank period is in direct violation of the 2nd amendment ? Why you may wonder ? I did not write the 2nd amendment and I cannot pick and choose what I want to like or dislike about the 2nd amendment . It was well thought out by many good men who had just sacrificed all they had to create this GREAT NATION , with wisdom and discussion they wrote the 2nd amendment for one reason ! There are many paper written back in the time regarding this amendment (The Jefferson Papers ) ( James Madison Papers ) Many more ! So opiniated young men I challenge you to educate yourselves as opposed to being democratic or republican and stop repeating what the talking heads on TV pour into you brain . Lies can never change facts . But a lie told long enough ppl begin to believe . Never give up the right to be free and say NO to the govt and stop looking for govt to take care of you . I am a part of neither party and closer to Librarian , but not even that I am a purist ? A Constitutionalist -- Give me liberty or give me death I will die a free man !

There have been crazies mass killings since the beginning of time before guns of any type . Point in statement is the 2nd amendment and it's rights given to a fee republic of ppl has noting to do with mass shootings multi round mags or the way a rifle looks ! Bottom line is the 2nd amendment was written so free men would have equal weaponry NEAR equal to the US Govt. for the purpose of protecting our rights as we the ppl to actually defend ourselves against an over reaching and out of control Govt. ........ Much like what we have now . Look how easily the Covid 19 scare changed our lives through Govt control . What if this is a test run and near required vaccines . = to near martial law ( Like what I say or not ) Any gun a free man owns is not intentioned by the 2nd amendment for any other reason than to keep and save our liberties and is rightfully owned with the intent to keep all men free ! End of discussion ! SWAK !



Biden stated is a national news conference " WE ARE GOING TO TAKE YOUR GUNS AWAY" NO ONE WILL EVER TAKE ONE OF MY WEAPONS AWAY ! I HAVE 5000 ROUND + OF AMMO THAT SAYS THEY WILL NOT !

SO HOW MUCH DO YOU OWE ME NOW PEACE and we all have opinions some are just willing to die for them as in 1774 when the birth of this nation began .
s
Pro-2A and Pro Gun are far from the same check out You Tube and google it ----- Kind of like saying socialisms and communism are the same ..... 2 different animals

Mean while I am cooking Squash , Zucchini , onions , - Das of lemon lots of garlic lots of Salt and 1/2 cup of lime Budweiser , Oh and do not forget that nasty butter ....... My screwed up ass is loosing 20lbs every 13 days eating this and spinach - along with 5 protein shakes a day meat make me sick .... I know weird

[Cuz]

I think ill fire off a few rounds through the .308 Monday. God bless our troops defending our rights and freedoms that passed in battle

[Hughinn]

The only reason the democrat party hasn't taken the right to own weapons away, is simply because they don't (yet) have the power to do it.

As soon as they do, you better believe they'll try.

And buzzard is absolutely correct. The second amendment doesn't have dick to do with keeping guns "for hunting" or for "sport and recreation" or any other nonsense like "collector purposes". The intent of the second amendment is clear.

The Second Amendment, ratified in 1791, was proposed by James Madison to allow the creation of civilian forces that can counteract a tyrannical federal government.

It couldn't be clearer. And the need to keep that amendment couldn't be more clear than now.

A man in Missouri, literally faced jail time, for defending himself and his property from the militant thugs of the democrat party.

No logical person could argue what the real intention of the second amendment is. The author, was very precise as to the reasoning. And we can see exactly why that amendment was written by simple observation around us right now as we see the rise of totalitarianism and socialism propogating from the DNC and it's Communist/Marxist allies. This extends practically, to the violent thugs hired and incited by the democrat party to terrorize communities and citizens who disagree with thier policies.

[BuzzardMarinePumper]

The only reason the democrat party hasn't taken the right to own weapons away, is simply because they don't (yet) have the power to do it.

As soon as they do, you better believe they'll try.

And buzzard is absolutely correct. The second amendment doesn't have dick to do with keeping guns "for hunting" or for "sport and recreation" or any other nonsense like "collector purposes". The intent of the second amendment is clear.

The Second Amendment, ratified in 1791, was proposed by James Madison to allow the creation of civilian forces that can counteract a tyrannical federal government.

It couldn't be clearer. And the need to keep that amendment couldn't be more clear than now.

A man in Missouri, literally faced jail time, for defending himself and his property from the militant thugs of the democrat party.

No logical person could argue what the real intention of the second amendment is. The author, was very precise as to the reasoning. And we can see exactly why that amendment was written by simple observation around us right now as we see the rise of totalitarianism and socialism propogating from the DNC and it's Communist/Marxist allies. This extends practically, to the violent thugs hired and incited by the democrat party to terrorize communities and citizens who disagree with thier policies.

Can I get an AMEN

[Beetlegeuse]

There are several versions of the "Scientific Method" but all variants have one factor in common. Eventually you have to address whether your data supports the original hypothesis. And if it doesn't support it, you are obligated by the scientific method to make adjustments to that hypothesis to bring it in line with the data.

That the marxists/demoncrats/hoplophobes [pick one] completely ignore this principle is yet another indicator that gun control has nothing to do with guns and everything to do with control. It also brings to mind the quote attributed to Albert Einstein (even though there is no record of him having said it, it still makes good sense) that the very definition of insanity is to keep repeating the same action and expecting that the outcome will change.

Academic Study: Gun Turn-Ins (“Buybacks”) Increase Crime committed with Guns

U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- A study published in May of 2021 has rigorously shown such events do not reduce crime or suicides. Instead, the number of crimes committed with guns increases in the two months after the turn-in events (“buybacks”) are conducted.

The study was published by the National Bureau of Economics in Cambridge, Massachusetts, under the title:

HAVE U.S. GUN BUYBACK PROGRAMS MISFIRED?

The study authors are: Toshio Ferrazares, Joseph J. Sabia, and D.Mark Anderson

The term “buyback” is an Orwellian propaganda term. You cannot buy back what you never owned...


...The evidence of an increase in crime involving guns is robust. The results are mentioned again in the conclusion of the study:

Moreover, we find some evidence of a small, short-run increase in gun crime in the two months following a GBP. This result is consistent with the notion that GBPs primarily target low-risk firearms that are more likely to deter crime than be used in the commission of a crime (Kuhn et al. 2002) and with the hypothesis that some criminals may be emboldened by their perception that victims will be less likely to defend themselves with deadly physical force (Lott 1998).

These findings are consistent with an earlier large study, published in 2008, which looked at the effects of highly regulated gun shows in California vs. lightly regulated gun shows in Texas. That study found murder rates decreased in the areas of Texas following lightly regulated gun shows. Direct link to the 2008 paper. The two findings are complementary.

Fewer guns (“buybacks”) = more crime with guns, including homicide and kidnapping.

More guns (lightly regulated gun shows) = fewer homicides....


source: www.ammoland.com/2021/05/academic-study-gun-turn-ins-buybacks-increase-crime-committed-with-guns/

[Beetlegeuse]

That goodness LA has such strict gun control, huh?

And the next words out of their mouths will be that it wasn't enough gun control, or it wasn't the right kind of gun control. Which are the exact same excuses they made for the failure of Communism in Soviet Russia...

Murder Up 95% in Gun-Controlled Los Angeles County

Murder in gun-controlled Los Angeles County is up 95 percent compared to where it was at this same time during 2020.

Fox LA’s Bill Melugin reported that L.A. County Sheriff Alex Villanueva released numbers showing a 95 percent increase in murders, a 40 percent increase in grand theft auto, a 7.8 percent increase in rape, a 12.9 percent increase in aggravated assault, and a 22 percent increase in arson.

Los Angeles County, like all of California, has perhaps the most stringent gun controls in the nation.

In fact, in 2020, Gabby Giffords’ gun control outlet “Giffords” gave California one of the only two “A’s” passed out on a gun control scorecard. (The other state to receive an “A” was New Jersey.)

The state’s gun controls include a red flag law, universal background checks, a 10-day waiting period on firearm purchases, firearm registration requirements, an “assault weapons” ban, a limit on the number of guns a law-abiding citizen can purchase in a month, a “good cause” requirement for concealed carry permit issuance, a ban on K-12 teachers being armed for classroom defense, a ban on campus carry for self-defense, and numerous other controls.

And California has ammunition controls, too. These controls require individuals to undergo a background check to purchase ammunition in a manner similar to the way that one undergoes a background check to buy a firearm.

Moreover, the City of Los Angeles has a gun storage law, which is one more control atop the myriad gun control laws that exist at the state level.

Yet murders are up 95 percent compared to where they were at this same time last year....


... It just wasn't Communism/Gun Control [pick one] done right, and I can do it better.



Preach on, Brother Peterson!

[Beetlegeuse]

New York's demoncrat commissariat can't control its citizens, or make their guns illegal enough, so they've decided to see if suing the gun industry mightn't obscure the fact that they couldn't find their own ass with both hands in broad daylight.

New York Democrats Seek to Sue Gun Makers as Shootings Surge

Democrats are looking for ways to sue gun manufacturers as shootings in New York City continue to surge.

Some Democrats are also seeking to make it more arduous to legally purchase firearms.

WSKG reports that state Sen. Zellnor Myrie (D) is sponsoring legislation to allow New York residents to sue gun makers who “don’t take steps to prevent their products from being sold and purchased illegally.”

Myrie commented, “I again ask this industry: what are you going to do about your products that are killing our people? You have experienced record profits this past year … and while you make record profits, we experienced record death.”...



an•thro•po•mor•phism ăn″thrə-pə-môr′fĭz″əm

n. Attribution of human motivation, characteristics, or behavior to inanimate objects, animals, or natural phenomena. As in:

" ...your products that are killing our people... "

Yup, all by themselves. Them guns are walking off the assembly line and taking the bus to NYC, then walking around the streets looking for some unsuspecting, god-fearing, helpless, hapless, law-abiding citizen to kill.