Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Valion wrote:

 purplefood wrote:
This problem would a be a lot simpler if America had laws that were uniform across the country...

I actually agree with that. We wouldn't have disgusting examples like this one that just came in:

Thats why we have states though, they were meant to give the American people options about what laws they wanted governing them. There is a reason the founding fathers created states instead of just a country and we (The people) forget that every time the federal government pass overarching laws to govern all people. If you think about it, its a great system. Don't like abortion? Move to a pro-life state.
Want 1/3 of your paycheck to be given to people to lazy to work? Move to a state that has that. Want to have unrestricted firearms? There's a state that has that.
I'll state right now that I am bias as I am a tea-party member but our founding fathers knew what they were doing. Our second amentment doesn't say "You have the right to bear arms...only if it has a seven round magazine."

Thats what the Civil war was about, slavery had little to no part of it until the very end. The federal government passed laws to force states to do things they didn't want to do and so when the states said "No" the federal government threw in the abolishment of slavery (to wreck their economy they didn't care one bit about the slaves) it backed the south into a corner and was forced to fight, and the north then used "slavery" to turn it into a holy war.

By the way, The freggn DOD told Defense Distributed to remove the file, does anyone on here have it that can pm me?

 Newabortion wrote:
By the way, The freggn DOD told Defense Distributed to remove the file, does anyone on here have it that can pm me?

It's not at all difficult to find.

well I don't dabble in torrent sites since I've been busted downloading stuff I shouldn't of already. (Damn you San Andreas!!!)

Newabortion wrote:Thats what the Civil war was about, slavery had little to no part of it until the very end. The federal government passed laws to force states to do things they didn't want to do

Okay, so this I will not abide by. The American Civil War was about slavery. Sometimes people try to cover up the South's abominable past and try to say that it was about "states' rights", which is technically true: it was about the states' right to keep slaves. And those things the states didn't want to do? It was "stop having slaves".

You've said a lot of things that I would expect to be characteristic of a Tea Partier, and we'll likely agree to disagree on some of them. But do not even think about suggesting the American Civil War was not about slavery at its core.

 azazel the cat wrote:

Okay, so this I will not abide by. The American Civil War was about slavery. Sometimes people try to cover up the South's abominable past and try to say that it was about "states' rights", which is technically true: it was about the states' right to keep slaves. And those things the states didn't want to do? It was "stop having slaves".

You've said a lot of things that I would expect to be characteristic of a Tea Partier, and we'll likely agree to disagree on some of them. But do not even think about suggesting the American Civil War was not about slavery at its core.

Um, az.... the Lincoln Administration didn't make it about slavery till about half way through, when they became concerned that England and/or France might intervene on behalf of the South, and were no longer worried that more states would secede if he did so, as he had them occupied with armed troops. (Lincoln's election was, after all, due to the fact that the opposing party could not unite behind a single candidate. His opposition had both more popular votes and more electoral college votes. He did not win re-election until the army voted, who had resented his challenger, McClellan, using them as a political stepping stone and getting men killed for his own political gain.)

The idea that he entire war was about slavery comes from South Carolina's 'Declaration of the Causes of Secession' which stated that they felt that Lincoln had 'bucked the system' as it were and was anti-slave and was going to show the north economic favoritism. Seven states seceded before he even took office.

At it's core, it wasn't about slavery, which is a common misconception, it was about money, and, by extension, power, and who would be the ruling class of the United States, the wealthy industrialists or the landed gentry. Previous to this, it was felt hte states had the right to ignore Federal laws that conflicted with their own Constitutions, the premise being it was the state, not Federal, Constitution which held supremacy.

I will say that Lincoln's re-election was a lucky thing for Canada. If it had been McClellan rather than Johnson, the Fenians would have been allowed to invade Canada unimpeded.

Stop feeding into the Civil War Debate.....anyway....

As passed by the Congress:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.[16

]

Just pointing out. Also back to the Tonka Toy Cinderblock pistol. A black powder pistol more reliable then this PoS.......probaly able to reload faster to. We talking news article that DoD ask them to take the site down?

 Valion wrote:

Huffington Post wrote:A man was arrested for violating New York's new gun restrictions after state troopers discovered a gun loaded with two more bullets than are allowed by law.

Gregory Dean Jr. was pulled over on Sunday in New Lebanon when authorities noticed his car's license-plate lamp wasn't working properly.

Troopers then noticed a .40 caliber handgun, legally registered to Dean, on the passenger seat of the car. The weapon was loaded with nine bullets rather than the seven bullets allowed under the state's recently passed SAFE Act.

Dean, who was also allegedly driving on a suspended license at the time, has been charged with unlawful possession of certain ammunition feeding devices.

If he had a Big Gulp in the car's cupholder, I believe he'd be classified as a "career criminal" under New York law.

And yet the DA declined to prosecute David Gregory for possession of an illegal high capacity magazine, even after police had previously warned him.

On would think that existing magazines would be grandfathered in, much as pre-existing machine guns and sawed off shotguns were. That just makes no sense,

I was pointing out the hypocrisy of not enforcing existing gun laws, and picking and choosing which ones to enforce.

Just like immagration laws eh? .... wait.......thats in court now

 Jihadin wrote:
Just like immagration laws eh? .... wait.......thats in court now

Yeah, thanks for the reminder As a legal immigrant watching people who don't think that the law applies to them demand special treatment is always fun........

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
As a legal immigrant watching people who don't think that the law applies to them demand special treatment is always fun........

That's a central fact of the United States. It's run by people who don't think the law applies to them and that they deserve special treatment. You'll find them wandering the halls of Congress and in corporate board rooms the country over.