Shooting In South Carolina

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Or:

What is “not necessary” is to fly on public property a flag born in and of the secession of states in order that they could safeguard the future of the property status of black slaves. Taking it down is indeed very necessary.[/quote]

I think the STATE of South Carolina and it’s citizens know what’s best for THEIR STATE… If you feel that strongly about it, move to South Carolina and vote/organize against it. But in the absence of that, why don’t you focus on the things wrong with YOUR state and leave other states alone.

In other words, this issue doesn’t affect you AT ALL, so why don’t you mind your own business? The State of South Carolina is more than capable of handling its business according to the wishes of ITS citizens - your opinion is not needed, nor appreciated.

In fact, your opinion, along with the other people telling a sovereign state what flag it “should” or “should not” fly, is simply encroaching on state’s rights. That’s the lens they see this through. The more that Yankee northerners rail and rail about an issue that A) doesn’t concern you and B) is not under your control, the more people are going to dig into their position.

You see, it’s a matter of PRINCIPLE. Something many progressives/libtards (not calling you a progressive, SMH, just a general statement) don’t understand. Some of them may actually AGREE with you, but are not inclined to budge because they resent the hell out of “being TOLD what to do”. They view it as a state’s rights issue first and while that flag may offend some people, it offends the people of South Carolina MORE that the Progressives and the Executive Branch of the FEDERAL government is trying to tell them how they “should” do things in THEIR STATE.

Personally, the Confederate flag does not offend me any more than a pirate flag would offend me - a case could be made that BOTH flags represent violence. Should we tell Pittsburgh’s baseball team to find another mascot because “pirates” represent “raping and pillaging” and is insensitive and offends ALL women? I mean, the Pittsburgh team is basically, declaring themselves a bunch of rapists by having a pirate as their mascot and flying pirate flags, right?

NO? Well you can’t really have it both ways… If the Pittsburgh pirates and their fans flying pirate flags are not all a bunch of rapists, then the citizens of South Carolina and all southerners flying the Southern Cross certainly can’t ALL be called racists.

I live in Virginia. The Southern Cross was the battle flag of the army of northern Virgina. In fact, nearly ALL of the major roads, highways, parks and schools around here are named after one prominent CONFEDERATE figure or another. If the PC police pressure SC to stop flying a flag it wants to fly, what’s next? Will they demand that Virginia rename all of it’s schools, parks and roads? I mean, they “honor” slavery, don’t they? By that twisted logic, where does it end? Will the Left be satisfied when we name ALL roads MLK? I’m just waiting for a bunch of parks, roads, airports and shit to be named after Obama… Because, you know, he UNITED all people…

102

[quote]pushharder wrote:

When I get close to you again I’ll look you up. Where art thou?[/quote]

Please do. I am based in NYC (though I travel internationally so much that I would say I only live in the Northeast part-time; that is hopefully going to change, and maybe when it does I’ll move to Socal, which, as you know, is a hell of a place, flaws and all).

103

I have to pick things out because this was a long post and I am short on time. If I miss something important or misrepresent your argument, call me out.

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

I think the STATE of South Carolina and it’s citizens know what’s best for THEIR STATE… If you feel that strongly about it, move to South Carolina and vote/organize against it. But in the absence of that, why don’t you focus on the things wrong with YOUR state and leave other states alone.[/quote]

Because I, like you, have the ability to think about many different things in a single day, and – also like you – I don’t confine myself to think only about things that exist/happen within a particular radius of my home. I have opinions about things in New York; I have opinions about things in New Jersey; I have opinions about things in California; I have opinions about things in South Carolina; I have opinions about things in Germany; I have opinions about things in China; I even have opinions about things in outer space.

Am I saying that I want to rise to some throne and, by ukase, impose my will on other people?

No, I am not.

I am saying here is something that’s happening and here is what should be done about it and why.

[quote]
In other words, this issue doesn’t affect you AT ALL, so why don’t you mind your own business?[/quote]

  1. It affects me that I share citizenship with voters – and remember that the voting of others implies a certain amount of potential power over my own political future – who want to fly this flag on state property despite what I’ve been saying. It is good to persuade people to do what they should, so long as you can clearly and correctly articulate your case.

  2. Even if 1 weren’t so, my argument against the flag would still be as strong as it is – please note that nobody has actually tried to criticize it – and my zip code would not change this.

[quote]
The State of South Carolina is more than capable of handling its business according to the wishes of ITS citizens[/quote]

Apparently, it is not.

[quote]

  • your opinion is not needed, nor appreciated.[/quote]

It is needed. I don’t give half of a quarter of a fuck whether it’s appreciated.

[quote]
In fact, your opinion, along with the other people telling a sovereign state what flag it “should” or “should not” fly, is simply encroaching on state’s rights.[/quote]

No, it isn’t. State’s rights is about law and government. I’m talking about what history and basic decency say about what the government of South Carolina ought to do of its own accord. I believe that it was a Republican fro S.C. who introduced the measure a day or two ago.

[quote]

You see, it’s a matter of PRINCIPLE.[/quote]

Yes, it is. And principle is on my side.

Edited.

104

I like how a piece of complete and utter garbage kills 9 people and we’re talking about a fucking flag.

105

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Personally, the Confederate flag does not offend me any more than a pirate flag would offend me - a case could be made that BOTH flags represent violence.[/quote]

You are a very, very clever guy and this is a fantastically clever bit of sophistry. I am literally smiling. It’s just sophistry for lots of reasons (Pirates’ logo and flag is a parodic cartoon whereas the CSA battle colors are the exact same ones flown in the name of slavery – it is a copy, not a caricature; the CSA battle flag was used by Confederates/is used today in the same general arena of Southern political symbology, whereas actual pirates never played baseball and, by way of this disjunction, do not pass the test of seriousness as a problem; the associations entailed by piracy are not monolithic, clear, and specifically/explicitly bound up with anything like state-sanctioned ownership of black people; only one of the two “violences” in question is not far removed from us by time and lore, and it has to do with a very specific and identifiable set of people who know themselves by the evidence of their physical appearance to be descended from the “inferiors” the CSA colors were designed to keep down – no such associations with piracy)…but well done. Very well done.

[quote]
If the PC police pressure SC to stop flying a flag it wants to fly, what’s next? Will they demand that Virginia rename all of it’s schools, parks and roads?[/quote]

This isn’t about PC, and, if it is, you have kicked the term PC around often enough that it is now meaningless.

But yes, states should not be naming their shit after people who fought for the explicit purpose of maintain the property status of enslaved black people. This is very obvious.

[quote]
Will the Left be satisfied when we name ALL roads MLK?[/quote]

More sophistry. To take one hypothetical example:

"Let’s not call any of our roads “Slavery Should Have Live On Road” =/= "Let’s name all of our roads “Black People Are Great Lane.”

Edited.

Second edit: Also – I can’t believe I forgot this one – the Pirates are owned by Robert Nutting, not the government. Public property is where we need to be careful not to post stupid public messages. I wouldn’t give a damn if the Pirates changed their name to the Pittsburgh Jewish Entertainment Executives, though it would be a stupid move on their part.

106

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I like how a piece of complete and utter garbage kills 9 people and we’re talking about a fucking flag. [/quote]

There isn’t that much to say about him and them, though. He is, as you say, complete and utter garbage. His victims’ deaths are tragic beyond the reach of words. There isn’t much political debate to be had there. So the thing turns to guns, flags, etc. – the things on which people disagree.

107

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I like how a piece of complete and utter garbage kills 9 people and we’re talking about a fucking flag. [/quote]

There isn’t that much to say about him and them, though. He is, as you say, complete and utter garbage. His victims’ deaths are tragic beyond the reach of words. There isn’t much political debate to be had there. So the thing turns to guns, flags, etc. – the things on which people disagree.[/quote]

I suppose. I just think it’s kind tragic that the conversation almost immediately turns to a flag. There are a lot of other issues, imo, that should be discussed first (mental illness, gun free zones, etc…).

I’m annoyed with the talking heads more so than you guys anyway :slight_smile:

108

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I like how a piece of complete and utter garbage kills 9 people and we’re talking about a fucking flag. [/quote]

There isn’t that much to say about him and them, though. He is, as you say, complete and utter garbage. His victims’ deaths are tragic beyond the reach of words. There isn’t much political debate to be had there. So the thing turns to guns, flags, etc. – the things on which people disagree.[/quote]

I suppose. I just think it’s kind tragic that the conversation almost immediately turns to a flag. There are a lot of other issues, imo, that should be discussed first (mental illness, gun free zones, etc…). [/quote]

Yeah, I get that. Although, in fairness, Roof himself put the flag into the story, and prominently so. I actually do think it’s important, and have thought so for a long time.

[quote]
I’m annoyed with the talking heads more so than you guys anyway :slight_smile: [/quote]

Haha well being annoyed at them is a perpetual state of mind for me.

109

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I like how a piece of complete and utter garbage kills 9 people and we’re talking about a fucking flag. [/quote]

There isn’t that much to say about him and them, though. He is, as you say, complete and utter garbage. His victims’ deaths are tragic beyond the reach of words. There isn’t much political debate to be had there. So the thing turns to guns, flags, etc. – the things on which people disagree.[/quote]

I suppose. I just think it’s kind tragic that the conversation almost immediately turns to a flag. There are a lot of other issues, imo, that should be discussed first (mental illness, gun free zones, etc…). [/quote]

Yeah, I get that. Although, in fairness, Roof himself put the flag into the story, and prominently so. I actually do think it’s important, and have thought so for a long time.
[/quote]

Ya, I get that and would certainly not try to discount your opinion on the flag. I personally could not care less whether it’s flown on not. The history behind it means absolutely nothing to me though.

[quote]

[quote]
I’m annoyed with the talking heads more so than you guys anyway :slight_smile: [/quote]

Haha well being annoyed at them is a perpetual state of mind for me.[/quote]

Lol, true story.

110

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Or:

What is “not necessary” is to fly on public property a flag born in and of the secession of states in order that they could safeguard the future of the property status of black slaves. Taking it down is indeed very necessary.[/quote]

Some folks, usually not southerners, share your views. Some, including a lot of southerners, like me, who are NOT racist bastards, don’t.[/quote]

I always pictured you born and raised in Montana.

Most importantly – I know you aren’t racist. I’m not arguing that the people who want to fly the flag are racist (well, some and/or many – including Dylann Storm Roof – are, but nothing like all, and certainly not you). I’m arguing about whether it is actually appropriate, given the flag’s origin and history. Many people from the South feel certain things about the CSA battle colors. I am not talking about feelings – they are ingrained early and have no necessary connection with the rational world. I am talking about what is and what isn’t. The facts I’ve offered about the colors are not capable of serving as objects of contention. They are beyond dispute. And they lead clearly to the conclusion that the flag should not fly on public property.[/quote]

Pardon me, but…uh, how did you get from “is” to “should”?[/quote]

By not being a nihilist?

“Joe is a pedophile, so you shouldn’t let him babysit your kids.”[/quote]

You are absolutely incorrect.

You shouldn’t let him babysit your children IF you do not want to put them at risk.

The is/ought problem is one that David Hume spent quite a bit of time analyzing and neither he nor any other philosopher has been able to even remotely marry the two. You’re quite pompous and ill-informed if you think you’ve done so here.

What “should” happen or “ought” to happen must at least be pre-qualified to some extent. You assume some sort of morality here that is overarching and supersedes all other morality. The plain fact is that IF one does not want to be perceived as a racist, then it would behoove them to not fly the Confederate flag.

111

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I like how a piece of complete and utter garbage kills 9 people and we’re talking about a fucking flag. [/quote]

What else is there to say about the guy? He was a delusional, bigoted, deeply disturbed person with homicidal tendencies who got his hands on a gun and killed 9 people. We can turn this into another gun control discussion if that’s what you desire.

There’s something I’ve always found a bit hypocritical and self-serving when it comes to the gun control issue. The right to own a gun is clearly enumerated in the 2nd Amendment. However, there seem to be two basic schools of thought regarding this Amendment. Some feel that the right to own a gun is simply a necessary condition for maintaining a well-regulated militia.

Others, and these tend to be the more vociferous of the anti-gun control crowd, view this right as nothing more than the right to self-defense. That would certainly negate pretty much any argument for limiting gun ownership. In fact, this group is against virtually any limitations placed upon one’s ability to own a gun since to do so would place a limitation on the right to self-defense.

But we all tacitly accept limitations on the ability to defend ourselves everyday. If we have the right to self-defense, then why stop at guns? Why don’t I have the right to own an F-22 Raptor? Why don’t I have the right to own an Abrams tank? Why can’t I have my own low-yield, tactical nuke? These would all better protect me than a fucking pistol or an assault rifle. NOBODY in my neighborhood would fuck with me if I had a fucking Abrams tank sitting in my driveway. Nobody.

So it seems to me that every time a gun rights advocate argues against the limitation of guns but does NOT turn around and also argue for an expansion of the weapons we may legally own, they accept the idea that the right to self-defense certainly may be limited to a certain extent.

112

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Or:

What is “not necessary” is to fly on public property a flag born in and of the secession of states in order that they could safeguard the future of the property status of black slaves. Taking it down is indeed very necessary.[/quote]

Some folks, usually not southerners, share your views. Some, including a lot of southerners, like me, who are NOT racist bastards, don’t.[/quote]

I always pictured you born and raised in Montana.

Most importantly – I know you aren’t racist. I’m not arguing that the people who want to fly the flag are racist (well, some and/or many – including Dylann Storm Roof – are, but nothing like all, and certainly not you). I’m arguing about whether it is actually appropriate, given the flag’s origin and history. Many people from the South feel certain things about the CSA battle colors. I am not talking about feelings – they are ingrained early and have no necessary connection with the rational world. I am talking about what is and what isn’t. The facts I’ve offered about the colors are not capable of serving as objects of contention. They are beyond dispute. And they lead clearly to the conclusion that the flag should not fly on public property.[/quote]

Pardon me, but…uh, how did you get from “is” to “should”?[/quote]

By not being a nihilist?

“Joe is a pedophile, so you shouldn’t let him babysit your kids.”[/quote]

You are absolutely incorrect.

You shouldn’t let him babysit your children IF you do not want to put them at risk.

The is/ought problem is one that David Hume spent quite a bit of time analyzing and neither him nor any other philosopher has been able to even remotely marry the two. You’re quite pompous and ill-informed if you think you’ve done so here.

What “should” happen or “ought” to happen must at least be pre-qualified to some extent. You assume some sort of morality here that is overarching and supersedes all other morality. The plain fact is that IF one does not want to be perceived as a racist, then it would behoove them to not fly the Confederate flag.[/quote]

Ought poses no problems outside of philosophical rumination. I have made the case many times here that “ought” cannot be proved by way of some objective morality. That is, we agree.

However, in political discussion, we assume things like “you don’t want your kids molested” and “you don’t want to look like, or be, a racist.” I don’t feel compelled to qualify my words when I say that Roof ought not have killed those people, and anybody who does is a fool.

113

^ Which is the meaning of “I am not a nihilist.” I assume that people in general accept that certain things ought (health, love) and certain things ought not (racism, murder).

If this assumption were to fail me – if it came to light that my opponent is happily racist and would not accept criticism unless I could prove that racism is objectively wrong with some kind of mathematical equation – I would simply stop arguing. I don’t play chess with badgers.

114

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Or:

What is “not necessary” is to fly on public property a flag born in and of the secession of states in order that they could safeguard the future of the property status of black slaves. Taking it down is indeed very necessary.[/quote]

Some folks, usually not southerners, share your views. Some, including a lot of southerners, like me, who are NOT racist bastards, don’t.[/quote]

You may not be a racist bastard, but it’s hard to argue otherwise when you support flying a flag that is a symbol of just that thing. The South seceded due to the idea that their property rights as states and as individuals were in jeopardy.

They only have property rights over which to secede if they first acknowledge that people can be construed as property.

As many a Southerner testified prior to, during, and after the Civil War, blacks were considered to be so inferior to whites that slavery was considered a good thing for blacks, since it put them in closer proximity with “enlightened” whites.

Read every section referring to “slaves” in the Constitution. Madison was very careful not to construct those clauses in such a manner as to define any human being as property. It’s quite the extra-constitutional leap to assume that there is ANY state right whatsoever to determine whether a person can become someone’s else literal property.

So you can embrace the flag as a symbol of Southern pride, but pride in what? Pride in a failed rebellion fought in part to preserve the “right” to own someone else because of their ancestry? Pride in getting your teeth kicked in during the “war of Northern aggression”? Pride in a bastardized interpretation of the Constitution and its origins? Pride in the disparate amount of federal welfare dollars that are spent in the South? Pride in the fact that the very thing from which the South seceded, the federal gov’t, is largely responsible for keeping many southern states viable? (Mississippi, Arkansas, Alabama, Louisiana, to name a few, are some of the largest recipients of federal money in the country).

What exactly does the flag represent to Southerners who are NOT racist?[/quote]

I agree with a fair amount of your post.

But I’ve not the ambition to explain Southern pride to you at this time.
[/quote]

Really?

I’m not sure I need Southern pride explained to me. What baffles me is how a flag that represents a miserably failed attempt to secede over the right to own people is any indicator of pride at all. It’s the flag of a lost, embarrassing cause.

I have pride in America, so I fly an American flag on my porch every day. I have pride in the Golden State Warriors, so I have a little flag that flies on my truck window sometimes. As someone with German ancestry, I have pride in being German. But I have three options with that one. I can fly the German flag, I can fly the Nazi flag, or I can fly the East German flag. I think we all know which two would be a bad choice. And we know what those two flags originally stood for.

So I fail to see how flying the Confederate flag is anything other than an approval of the Confederacy itself, not the South. The South and the Confederacy are two ENTIRELY different things. Remember, secession was not universally popular in the South at all. Shit, the flag most commonly associated with the Confederacy wasn’t even designed until 1863, well into the war. Flying the flag, to anyone with a rudimentary understanding of the Civil War, creates the impression that one supports the CONFEDERACY, not the South. And we all know what the Confederacy stood for.

115

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Or:

What is “not necessary” is to fly on public property a flag born in and of the secession of states in order that they could safeguard the future of the property status of black slaves. Taking it down is indeed very necessary.[/quote]

Some folks, usually not southerners, share your views. Some, including a lot of southerners, like me, who are NOT racist bastards, don’t.[/quote]

I always pictured you born and raised in Montana.

Most importantly – I know you aren’t racist. I’m not arguing that the people who want to fly the flag are racist (well, some and/or many – including Dylann Storm Roof – are, but nothing like all, and certainly not you). I’m arguing about whether it is actually appropriate, given the flag’s origin and history. Many people from the South feel certain things about the CSA battle colors. I am not talking about feelings – they are ingrained early and have no necessary connection with the rational world. I am talking about what is and what isn’t. The facts I’ve offered about the colors are not capable of serving as objects of contention. They are beyond dispute. And they lead clearly to the conclusion that the flag should not fly on public property.[/quote]

Pardon me, but…uh, how did you get from “is” to “should”?[/quote]

By not being a nihilist?

“Joe is a pedophile, so you shouldn’t let him babysit your kids.”[/quote]

You are absolutely incorrect.

You shouldn’t let him babysit your children IF you do not want to put them at risk.

The is/ought problem is one that David Hume spent quite a bit of time analyzing and neither him nor any other philosopher has been able to even remotely marry the two. You’re quite pompous and ill-informed if you think you’ve done so here.

What “should” happen or “ought” to happen must at least be pre-qualified to some extent. You assume some sort of morality here that is overarching and supersedes all other morality. The plain fact is that IF one does not want to be perceived as a racist, then it would behoove them to not fly the Confederate flag.[/quote]

Ought poses no problems outside of philosophical rumination. I have made the case many times here that “ought” cannot be proved by way of some objective morality. That is, we agree.

However, in political discussion, we assume things like “you don’t want your kids molested” and “you don’t want to look like, or be, a racist.” I don’t feel compelled to qualify my words when I say that Roof ought not have killed those people, and anybody who does is a fool.[/quote]

Fair enough. Perhaps I was being a little too literal.

116

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Others, and these tend to be the more vociferous of the anti-gun control crowd, view this right as nothing more than the right to self-defense. That would certainly negate pretty much any argument for limiting gun ownership. In fact, this group is against virtually any limitations placed upon one’s ability to own a gun since to do so would place a limitation on the right to self-defense.

But we all tacitly accept limitations on the ability to defend ourselves everyday. If we have the right to self-defense, then why stop at guns? Why don’t I have the right to own an F-22 Raptor? Why don’t I have the right to own an Abrams tank? Why can’t I have my own low-yield, tactical nuke? These would all better protect me than a fucking pistol or an assault rifle. NOBODY in my neighborhood would fuck with me if I had a fucking Abrams tank sitting in my driveway. Nobody.

So it seems to me that every time a gun rights advocate argues against the limitation of guns but does NOT turn around and also argue for an expansion of the weapons we may legally own, they accept the idea that the right to self-defense certainly may be limited to a certain extent.[/quote]

You’re sort of taking the ball, and running towards the endzone after the whistle blew here.

The vast, vast majority of the “shall not be infringed” crowd understands, and knows in their heart, that will never be the rule of law again. The 4473 is NOT going away anytime, ever. Overturning the Hughes amendment is much more likely, but a shot in the dark, and the GCA of 1968 is here to stay along with the NFA.

People in the second group you mention know all this. The fact of the matter is none of this is a “compromise”, no, it is gun enthusiasts having their rights eroded, and no further “control” will be a compromise either. Any gun laws passed are either a) further stripping of rights or b) return of rights once protected.

Compromise would be: “yeah if you agree to universal background checks, we’ll repeal the Hughes amendment”. Anti-civil rights people would NEVER agree to that, because they don’t want compromise, they want control.

This basic fact is why the tires cries of “but mah nukes” and “gun show loophole” fall on deaf ears. We’re done “compromising”. We arent’ the fucking Fudds of yesteryear that think “as long as I got me bolt action .308 for killing those there meese in the hills…”. No.

We think more along the lines of “Rosa didn’t need to sit at the front of the bus to get where she was going, but it was her right to sit there. I don’t need a reason to own a direct gas impingement operated semi auto that fires 5.56mm ammo from factory standard magazines, it’s my right to own it.”

117

I’m not sure why you directed all this at me…

Anyway:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
But we all tacitly accept limitations on the ability to defend ourselves everyday. If we have the right to self-defense, then why stop at guns? Why don’t I have the right to own an F-22 Raptor? Why don’t I have the right to own an Abrams tank? Why can’t I have my own low-yield, tactical nuke? These would all better protect me than a fucking pistol or an assault rifle. NOBODY in my neighborhood would fuck with me if I had a fucking Abrams tank sitting in my driveway. Nobody. [/quote]

Well, we all don’t tacitly accept limitations. If you happen to have about $340 million dollars sitting around and you can somehow get the U.S. government to declassify a number of key components on an F-22 than have at it chief.

Good luck.

[quote]
So it seems to me that every time a gun rights advocate argues against the limitation of guns but does NOT turn around and also argue for an expansion of the weapons we may legally own, they accept the idea that the right to self-defense certainly may be limited to a certain extent.[/quote]

Sure, I guess. I’m not really sure how you’re in imminent danger if you’re flying around in your fully weaponized F-22 or driving around in a tank. Nor do I see how you can deploy a tactical nuke while being in imminent danger without killing yourself…

It can be argued these types of weapons systems were not designed for individual self defense.

118

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I’m not sure why you directed all this at me…

Anyway:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
But we all tacitly accept limitations on the ability to defend ourselves everyday. If we have the right to self-defense, then why stop at guns? Why don’t I have the right to own an F-22 Raptor? Why don’t I have the right to own an Abrams tank? Why can’t I have my own low-yield, tactical nuke? These would all better protect me than a fucking pistol or an assault rifle. NOBODY in my neighborhood would fuck with me if I had a fucking Abrams tank sitting in my driveway. Nobody. [/quote]

Well, we all don’t tacitly accept limitations. If you happen to have about $340 million dollars sitting around and you can somehow get the U.S. government to declassify a number of key components on an F-22 than have at it chief.

Good luck.

[quote]
So it seems to me that every time a gun rights advocate argues against the limitation of guns but does NOT turn around and also argue for an expansion of the weapons we may legally own, they accept the idea that the right to self-defense certainly may be limited to a certain extent.[/quote]

Sure, I guess. I’m not really sure how you’re in imminent danger if you’re flying around in your fully weaponized F-22 or driving around in a tank. Nor do I see how you can deploy a tactical nuke while being in imminent danger without killing yourself…

It can be argued these types of weapons systems were not designed for individual self defense. [/quote]

I directed it toward you because you generally have intelligent things to say on matters in this forum.

You’re right, certain weapons are not designed for individual use. But you know what WAS? A fucking RPG! But I can’t own one of those things.

119

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

The war was fought for many reasons, the primary one being the preservation of the United States. [/quote]

I’m going to omit the rest of what you said, but regarding secession, this begs the question: when can a state secede from the union? If the answer is never, that kind of wrecks the idea of a voluntary political union. The states formed the federal government, not the other way around. Indeed if a political union is formed voluntarily, it should be able to be dissolved without regard to motivation.

120

smh, would you support the complete redesign of the American flag? Based on the fact that slavery once existed in America and we should reset our symbols to ones that have nothing to do with slavery.