Shooting In South Carolina

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
141

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[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. [/quote]

It isn’t like this an overly simple task, and depending on the state you live in, damn near impossible.

You need local LEO sign off.

142

[quote]DBCooper 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]

Are you fucking kidding me?[/quote]

You live near San Fran right?

As far as you’re concerned, you can just conclude you can’t get one, and call it a day, lol.

144

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[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.[/quote]

Fair enough. I’m a bit sensitive today…

146

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]DBCooper 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]

Are you fucking kidding me?[/quote]

You live near San Fran right?

As far as you’re concerned, you can just conclude you can’t get one, and call it a day, lol. [/quote]

Yes. Fortunately for me, I have a nice, safe Weatherby Patrician II 12 ga., a motherucking S&W .500 Magnum (WAY too much gun), and an old S&W .357 Magnum. With those three, I like my chances against a group of disillusioned hipster computer programmers.

147

[quote]pushharder wrote:

Andrew Jackson, a slaveowner and one of the last guys that would’ve helped funnel Harriet Tubman to Vermont, squashed preliminary secession efforts in 1832 and certainly did not do so because of anti-slavery ideals.[/quote]

And this has nothing to do with the explicit cause of the Civil War. The states seceded for a reason and they told us the reason. That secession had been talked about does not change the FACT that the CSA seceded in protection of slavery. To suggest otherwise is akin to saying that LHO shot Kennedy for the fallen Confederacy because JWB had shot a president previously.

I produced primary documentation in support of my characterization. If you have the same in refutation of it, I’ll gladly take a look.

148

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

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.[/quote]

Bullshit.

You’ve some things to learn about the Nullification Crisis of 1832.

You’ve some things to learn about New England states who wanted to secede right before and during the War of 1812.

Secession was not always intrinsically linked to slavery.[/quote]

I have nothing to learn about the Nullification Crisis of 1832. It was an issue primarily in South Carolina, not the entirety of the South. When President Jackson signed into the law the Tariff Act of 1832 was a compromise with which all states except for South Carolina agreed.

New England states aren’t southern states, to which I specifically referring.

I will grant you that this was certainly not the first time the specter of secession reared its ugly head. However, my understanding of your initial argument was that you felt it inevitable that the SOUTH would secede at some point. I disagree with that assessment.

Besides, this distracts from the larger issue at hand, and that is what the Confederate flag represents. Since it represents the Confederacy, we must then ask what the Confederacy represents. The Confederacy was a failed insurrection in protest of the federal govt’s attempts to restrict the ownership of people in the states in which it already existed. At no point was there ever a serious attempt in the years immediately prior to the Civil War to remove slavery from where it already existed, not on the part of the federal gov’t.

151

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

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.

[/quote]

Hey, if we’re going to employ the word, “create,” we have to stick with its meaning which is “originate.” The states created/originated the USA. Period.

Even post-1803 the states, via a unified contract, continued to create other states.

The federal government does not create the USA in any, shape form or fashion. Period.
[/quote]

I’m sorry, was it state funds that were used to purchase Louisiana? Which state created California?

152

[quote]pushharder wrote:
We’re probably all quibbling now.

Oh well.

Quibble on.

(And let the people of SC decide on what flag flies in SC and where)[/quote]

I certainly agree with your last sentence.

I think the issue over the flag is in part due to the idea that many Southerners do not feel it stands for the Confederacy but rather Southern pride.

Why is this flag a symbol of Southern pride? Pride about what? And why is this flag, of all symbols, the one used to represent pride in all things southern that do NOT have to do with racism and slavery? If someone isn’t racist and they claim not to be, then why are they flying the flag that is a symbol of a doomed insurrection in furtherance of slavery?

And that is what the flag initially stood for, historical revisionism not withstanding.

153

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

And this has nothing to do with the explicit cause of the Civil War…

[/quote]

The explicit cause of the Civil War was added to the pot on the stove that had initially been placed there in the early 1800’s, barely a few years after ratification of the Constitution.

Some New England states talked about bailing clear back at the turn of that century.

Southern states bandied it about because of the tariff.

G R A D U A L L Y, as the abolition movement gained steam it started to hinge on the slavery issue.

This is indisputable.[/quote]

The question is not, “Were the CSA the first to talk about seceding?” Neither is it, “Were there other states, at other times, that talked about seceding for other reasons?”

The question is, “Why did the CSA secede?”

The best place to begin searching for an answer is with the CSA themselves. Did they tell us why they seceded?

Yes. This is in indisputable.

I have already excerpted a tiny bit of the great amount of evidence in support of this argument (actually, it is much less an argument than a fact). Either you have stronger evidence in refutation of it, or there is a clear answer to the question: “Why did the CSA secede?” Which, of course, there is. From there the argument proceeds in a straight and bold line to the flight of the CSA battle flag on public property.

154

[quote]pushharder wrote:

Secession was not always intrinsically linked to slavery.[/quote]

i already mentioned this fact, and was promptly scolded for being wrong… lol

155

[quote]Aggv wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

Secession was not always intrinsically linked to slavery.[/quote]

i already mentioned this fact, and was promptly scolded for being wrong… lol[/quote]

We aren’t talking about secession in the abstract. We’re talking about SOUTHERN secession immediately after Lincoln’s election in 1860.

157

Back to the actual shooting.

SOme people are comparing this kid to Bill Ayers…

[i]Q: What’s the difference between Bill Ayers and Dylann Roof?
A: Dylann Roof isn’t a friend and colleague of an American president who enjoyed a cushy life in academia before retiring to life as the kind of author who’s invited on-the-air by the mainstream media to hawk his books.

Other than that, both of these pigs share much in common.

Bill Ayers is an unrepentant domestic terrorist.

Dylann Roof is an unrepentant domestic terrorist.

Bill Ayers despises America.

Dylann Roof despises America.

Bill Ayers?s terror group The Weather Underground targeted and murdered innocent people.

Dylann Roof targeted and murdered innocent people.

Bill Ayers used murder and violence and terror as a weapon for political change.

Dylann Roof used murder and violence and terror as a weapon for political change.

Bill Ayers wanted a race war.

Dylann Roof wants a race war.[/i]

Thoughts?

158

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Back to the actual shooting.

SOme people are comparing this kid to Bill Ayers…

[i]Q: What’s the difference between Bill Ayers and Dylann Roof?
A: Dylann Roof isn’t a friend and colleague of an American president who enjoyed a cushy life in academia before retiring to life as the kind of author who’s invited on-the-air by the mainstream media to hawk his books.

Other than that, both of these pigs share much in common.

Bill Ayers is an unrepentant domestic terrorist.

Dylann Roof is an unrepentant domestic terrorist.

Bill Ayers despises America.

Dylann Roof despises America.

Bill Ayers?s terror group The Weather Underground targeted and murdered innocent people.

Dylann Roof targeted and murdered innocent people.

Bill Ayers used murder and violence and terror as a weapon for political change.

Dylann Roof used murder and violence and terror as a weapon for political change.

Bill Ayers wanted a race war.

Dylann Roof wants a race war.[/i]

Thoughts?
[/quote]

While I would never defend a piece of shit like Bill Ayers, I think the comparison is a little off-base. First of all, Bill Ayers never committed pre-meditated murder. The deaths linked to the Weather Underground were largely the result of ineptitude.

And while I personally don’t think Ayers deserves anything even close to the benefit of the doubt, the fact is that he claimed, in hindsight, that the bombs were never intended to actually kill people, only cause massive disruption. This implies that he feels some level of regret, however small.

Dylan Roofs committed pre-meditated murder and has shown zero remorse or regret, even false remorse or regret.

I would say the differences pretty much end there, though.

159

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

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.

[/quote]

Hey, if we’re going to employ the word, “create,” we have to stick with its meaning which is “originate.” The states created/originated the USA. Period.

Even post-1803 the states, via a unified contract, continued to create other states.

The federal government does not create the USA in any, shape form or fashion. Period.
[/quote]

I suppose you missed the part in the Constitution that covers state admission. Let me hit you over the head with it.

Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1 states: New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

And to further drive home the point that it is indeed the federal gov’t that creates states, Congress has the power to accept a prospective state into the Union, thereby making it an actual state. And Congress is, of course, the bicameral legislative branch of…the federal gov’t.

160

[quote]pushharder wrote:
And the answer is the CSA was formed (it didn’t secede) for ALL the reasons, and more, that we’ve discussed. And it was part of a process that occurred over the course of several decades.[/quote]

What other reasons have we discussed? You named a few other states that talked about it for various reasons specific to their own concerns and times. What other reasons are you alluding to?

[quote]
The cause ju jour in 1861 was indeed slavery but it’s intellectually dishonest to reduce it down to just that.[/quote]

It was the cause that drove the South out, not the “cause du jour.” If there is intellectual dishonesty in the suggestion that the states seceded because of slavery, blame the states themselves: They were the ones who said so. Not that “intellectual dishonesty” is anything close to the worst thing they were.

If there was anything else significant enough to warrant mention alongside slavery as a primary cause of secession – there certainly won’t be anything that’s going to supplant it – then where is your primary evidence? I gave the plain words of the people in question.