Shooting In South Carolina

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
121

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[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.
[/quote]

Nah, I certainly get what you’re saying. It’s really a fundamental discussion living beneath every argument on PWI. Any disagreement can finally boil down to a challenge to prove or disprove an unprovable moral maxim. In philosophy it’s fascinating, but outside of that I just leave it as a set of essential assumptions.

122

[quote]sufiandy wrote:
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.[/quote]

I was waiting for someone to make this point.

No, because the American flag did not come into existence for, explicitly and entirely, the defense of slavery from its dissenters. Had it, I would.

Edited.

123

I wonder how Native Americans feel about the America flag. What happened to the natives makes slavery look like a vacation…

124

[quote]moroots wrote:

[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.[/quote]

If I buy a car and then decide that I don’t like the color, I can’t necessarily return the car for a full refund without the approval of the original owner.

The United States is essentially a compact between states. I would wholeheartedly disagree that the states created the federal gov’t. That may have been the case up until 1803, but not afterwards. (I’m referencing the Louisiana Purchase)

Regardless, I think Thomas Hobbes covered this quite well. Regardless of who created whom, you are right that it was a voluntary creation. But there were two parties involved in this creation. Actually, there were 13 parties. If a contract is made, and that is essentially what the Constitution is, then to dissolve it would necessitate voluntary action on all sides. To dissolve a contract into which all parties voluntarily engaged would be injurious to those who do not want to dissolve the contract.

And I fail to see how a voluntary agreement can be dissolved without motivation being relevant. That’s like saying I want to return my car but I’m not going to explain why I want to return it.

The contract between the states and the federal gov’t would be void if one party were to violate the terms of the contract. When Lincoln was elected, there were several Northern states that were ignoring fugitive slave laws in the South. But when Lincoln was elected he gave every indication that he would uphold fugitive slave laws. The Supreme Court was already disposed toward ruling entirely in the South’s favor on these matters. So I fail to see how ignoring fugitive slave laws constitutes a violation of the terms of the contract on the part of the federal gov’t.

Now, if the federal gov’t were in violation of the Constitution at the expense of the Southern states, then they could legitimately secede. What terms of the contract did the federal gov’t violate? I suggest you read the dissenting opinion from Justice McLean in Scott v. Sandford. There was no violation on the part of the federal gov’t. There were violations from other states, as mentioned above, but Article III of the Constitution clearly provides remedy for the states in this respect.

Furthermore, although it was after the fact, the Supreme Court also found in 1869 that there was never a constitutional right to secede.

And while the South is certainly free to risk secession whenever they want, the federal gov’t by virtue of the Constitution, is required to prevent such secession. The President himself takes an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States. There can be no Constitution of the United States if the states are not united.

125

[quote]sufiandy wrote:
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.[/quote]

Stop with the bullshit, irrelevant hypotheticals.

The American flag does not represent a nation formed specifically to protect the institution of slavery. It represents the first and only nation on this planet that was founded upon the principle that individuals have natural rights and that the authority of the gov’t is derived from its citizens, thereby making the citizens the ultimate sovereign and not the gov’t.

The day that THAT is something to be ashamed of is the day we get rid of Old Glory. And that day will never come.

126

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Yes indeed. I’ve seen the same thing – I lived in upstate NY for a year, next to a guy who had the stars and bars painted on his garage.
[/quote]

Did he really? The Stars and Bars? THIS flag?

That’s something I’ve never seen before.

Usually people display a rectangular version of the Battle Flag.

127

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Yes indeed. I’ve seen the same thing – I lived in upstate NY for a year, next to a guy who had the stars and bars painted on his garage.
[/quote]

Did he really? The Stars and Bars? THIS flag?

That’s something I’ve never seen before.

Usually people display a rectangular version of the Battle Flag.

129

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[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. [/quote]

Well I appreciate that.

[quote]
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.[/quote]

Perhaps, but again I think it would be very difficult to deploy an RPG while in imminent danger or fear of ones life without endangering yourself or family at the same time.

Scenario A: You are running at me with a knife and I have a handgun or rifle. I point my firearm at you and pull the trigger. The bullet is more than likely only going to harm you and it’s almost certainly not going to harm me.

Scenario B: You are running at me with a knife and I have an RPG. I fire. You die, I die, my house explodes, and the roof over grandma’s in-law suite crushers her to death.

Scenario C: You are running at me with a knife and I jump in my F/A-35B and perform a vertical take-off. I then fly, at Mach-1, around the county, and then drop one of my two 1,000 guided bombs on your last known location…

Scenario B: You are running at me with a knife and I get in my Abram Tank. I run you over…

I think you see where I’m going with this.

130

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

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.[/quote]

Yes you can. You just need to buy a two hundred dollar transfer tax stamp and register the RPG as a “destructive device”.

132

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Yes indeed. I’ve seen the same thing – I lived in upstate NY for a year, next to a guy who had the stars and bars painted on his garage.
[/quote]

Did he really? The Stars and Bars? THIS flag?

That’s something I’ve never seen before.

Usually people display a rectangular version of the Battle Flag.[/quote]

Yes, the flag of the CSA, not the battle flag of the ANV. Which amount to the same statement, really. He was smart guy, but, ya know.

133

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

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.[/quote]

Yes you can. You just need to buy a two hundred dollar transfer tax stamp and register the RPG as a “destructive device”. [/quote]

Thank you…

It’s frustrating trying to have a conversation with someone that ignores you, and is mistaken on facts of the matter.

134

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

No, because the American flag did not come into existence for, explicitly and entirely, the defense of slavery from its dissenters. Had it, I would.

Edited.[/quote]

No. You simply cannot use those two adverbs despite the statements made in the articles of secession. You KNOW it was more complicated than that.

Slavery was one of the symbols and/or motivators, the principal one in fact, but secession was done to prove the point that states that voluntarily joined the Union could voluntarily leave it. If slavery hadn’t been conveniently available as the cause celebre something else would’ve been used (in all likelihood in my humble speculation).[/quote]

You can change that to “overwhelmingly primarily,” and I can back it up a hundredfold. It was never about secession qua mere secession, as their own words show without ambiguity small or large. And the point stands tall.

Edit: And “explicitly” absolutely remains. They seceded explicitly in order to defend their “rights” as slave holding states. They made it explicit, many times over. Whatever else was talked about, that was the main act by a million miles, as anyone who has read them knows.

135

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

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.[/quote]

Yes you can. You just need to buy a two hundred dollar transfer tax stamp and register the RPG as a “destructive device”. [/quote]

Thank you…

It’s frustrating trying to have a conversation with someone that ignores you, and is mistaken on facts of the matter. [/quote]

Look at that, you learn something new every day.

136

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

the principle that individuals have natural rights and that the authority of the gov’t is derived from its citizens, thereby making the citizens the ultimate sovereign and not the gov’t.

The day that THAT is something to be ashamed of is the day we get rid of Old Glory. And that day will never come.[/quote]

What about the day when that principle is no longer demonstrably true?

137

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

No, because the American flag did not come into existence for, explicitly and entirely, the defense of slavery from its dissenters. Had it, I would.

Edited.[/quote]

No. You simply cannot use those two adverbs despite the statements made in the articles of secession. You KNOW it was more complicated than that.

Slavery was one of the symbols and/or motivators, the principal one in fact, but secession was done to prove the point that states that voluntarily joined the Union could voluntarily leave it. If slavery hadn’t been conveniently available as the cause celebre something else would’ve been used (in all likelihood in my humble speculation).[/quote]

That is a fucking massive amount of speculation you’re engaging in.

Let’e leave speculation aside and focus on reality. Secession occurred largely because the Southern states wanted to protect property rights from being assailed by the federal gov’t. Like I mentioned earlier, there were two schools of thought regarding this issue.

One, the Douglas supporters who felt that a state had the right to determine the slavery issue on their own. The other, those who felt that neither the federal gov’t NOR states themselves could determine the slavery issue. This particular argument is disingenuous since it ignores the fact that the Missouri Compromise did not take anyone’s property from them but only barred the ownership of people in territories in which slavery did not exist. So to many, secession was never about states’ rights at all but simply about whether the federal gov’t had the power to determine that people cannot own other people.

As mentioned previously, in the Constitution any language referring to “slaves” was constructed specifically so as not to allow men to be construed as property. This was a contentious issue that was set aside temporarily (hence the reference to not revisiting the issue until 1808).

The pure states’ rights argument is simply a revisionist interpretation that largely ignores the words of those who actually advocated secession at the time. You know, your best friend: primary sources.

On top of all of that, it is entirely disingenuous to argue that some other cause celebre would have made itself known. The fact is that there wasn’t really a large amount of tension between the South and the federal gov’t over states’ rights prior to the Civil War, certainly not enough to warrant even entertaining the idea of bypassing the judicial system and going straight to open insurrection. You make it sound as if secession was inevitable at SOME point no matter what, and slavery just happened to be the issue that forced it. I wholeheartedly disagree with your implied assessment of the political landscape at the time and the relationship between the states and the federal gov’t.

138

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

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.[/quote]

Yes you can. You just need to buy a two hundred dollar transfer tax stamp and register the RPG as a “destructive device”. [/quote]

Are you fucking kidding me?

139

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

the principle that individuals have natural rights and that the authority of the gov’t is derived from its citizens, thereby making the citizens the ultimate sovereign and not the gov’t.

The day that THAT is something to be ashamed of is the day we get rid of Old Glory. And that day will never come.[/quote]

What about the day when that principle is no longer demonstrably true?[/quote]

I’d say what fucking flag we fly will be the least of our concerns.

140

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

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.[/quote]

Yes you can. You just need to buy a two hundred dollar transfer tax stamp and register the RPG as a “destructive device”. [/quote]

Thank you…

It’s frustrating trying to have a conversation with someone that ignores you, and is mistaken on facts of the matter. [/quote]

Ignoring you? Gee, I’m sorry beansie. I didn’t see that you had responded to me earlier. The gun control thing was just something I threw out there. It isn’t really the topic I’m concerned with in this thread, so I didn’t bother checking for responses to it. I just happened to see uscmsc respond.