Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

I wonder who, over this past weekend, organized all these Republican politicians to have this mass call to remove all things Confederate. Over the last couple of days we have seen governors, senators, congress people, mayors calling to remove Confederate flags from public grounds. To remove it from any state issues license plates. The removal of monuments and statues. It is clear the Republican party is distancing themselves as far as they can from this. Likely in the lead up to the 2016 election.

Quote: 

 

Robert E. Lee as well as most Southern historians believed that slavery would have ended not long after the South had won it's freedom. Brazil had slavery well after the US abolished it, but still outlawed it before the turn of the century without civil war. Plantation profitability was plummeting with the introduction of industrialization and machinery and slave labor would not longer be worth its cost in the United States.

 

I disagree.  If they believed that slavery was on its way out, why did they secede in the first place?   I have read the Articles of Secession by 4 different southern states, and they all state quite clearly and emphatically that they are seceding to defend slavery. 

 

http://www.civilwar.org/education/histor...auses.html

 

Georgia:

 

"The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property...

 

Mississippi:

 

"In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.


Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth."

 

South Carolina:

 

"We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection."

 

Texas:

 

"Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated Union to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association."

 

 

Here are the words of Alexander Stephens, Vice President of the Confederacy.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornerstone_Speech

 

"Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition."

 

So your assertion that slavery would have ended on its own is contradicted by the very politicians who led the secession movement! 

 

More to the point, why would anyone be proud of the battle flag of the army that fought to defend slavery? 

 

 

As to your point about industrialization, the fact is, the introduction of the cotton gin increased the need for, and demand for, slaves to pick the cotton.  

Quote:I wonder who, over this past weekend, organized all these Republican politicians to have this mass call to remove all things Confederate. Over the last couple of days we have seen governors, senators, congress people, mayors calling to remove Confederate flags from public grounds. To remove it from any state issues license plates. The removal of monuments and statues. It is clear the Republican party is distancing themselves as far as they can from this. Likely in the lead up to the 2016 election.

Yeah, it's pretty funny to watch...


Lindsey Graham - "Blame the shooter, not the flag"


Three days later....


Lindsey Graham "Take it down!"

Quote:Easy for you to say, if you weren't one of the slaves. Hey, it's only been 300 years! Just hang on a little longer.

 

Not only that, how much more oppressive would it have been for "freed" slaves in the CSA? If you think Reconstruction and Jim Crow were bad for them, imagine their plight under such a government.

Quote:Yeah, it's pretty funny to watch...


Lindsey Graham - "Blame the shooter, not the flag"


Three days later....


Lindsey Graham "Take it down!"

Pretty normal, really.


"Blame the shooter, not the gun!"


"Blame the game, not the gamer!"

Quote:I wonder who, over this past weekend, organized all these Republican politicians to have this mass call to remove all things Confederate. Over the last couple of days we have seen governors, senators, congress people, mayors calling to remove Confederate flags from public grounds. To remove it from any state issues license plates. The removal of monuments and statues. It is clear the Republican party is distancing themselves as far as they can from this. Likely in the lead up to the 2016 election.

 

You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.

I am offended that everyone is offended about something.

Quote:I am offended that everyone is offended about something.

 

Then you'll fit right in with the age of entitlement. 

 

Make sure you avoid accountability like it's the plague.

Quote:Pretty normal, really.


"Blame the shooter, not the gun!"


"Blame the game, not the gamer!"

 

You kind of got yourself backwards there. 

 

Liberals like to blame inanimate objects for bad things.  So, a flag is blamed for a shooting in this instance.  So is a gun.  As long as you don't hold a person accountable, that's perfectly fine.  Blaming the shooter would be the last thing a good liberal would want to do. 

 

So, my point about you getting it backwards is in regard to the blame the game, not the gamer thing.  If you're going to be an effective liberal, you always blame the object because you can demand laws to deal with that, so in this case it's the game.  The gamer is just an innocent victim of the evil game.

Quote:You kind of got yourself backwards there. 

 

Liberals like to blame inanimate objects for bad things.  So, a flag is blamed for a shooting in this instance.  So is a gun.  As long as you don't hold a person accountable, that's perfectly fine.  Blaming the shooter would be the last thing a good liberal would want to do. 

 

So, my point about you getting it backwards is in regard to the blame the game, not the gamer thing.  If you're going to be an effective liberal, you always blame the object because you can demand laws to deal with that, so in this case it's the game.  The gamer is just an innocent victim of the evil game.

 

Name one person on this board whom you would characterize as liberal that has blamed the shooting on anything or anyone other than the shooter.

Quote:Name one person on this board whom you would characterize as liberal that has blamed the shooting on anything or anyone other than the shooter.

 

Where did I say anyone on this board did anything of the sort? I was simply pointing out that in these instances where there's a mass shooting, the liberal mindset always goes back to blaming the object.  So, you have a shooting in Charleston, and the biggest controversy is a flag.  That's what gets people outraged.  Prior to the flag controversy, the city of Charleston was actually handling this situation with far more compassion and class than cities like Ferguson or Baltimore. 

 

Go back through this thread and look at who is most outraged about a flag.  You won't see anyone who would be categorized as a conservative making that their big issue.

 

Same thing is true for those in this same thread who have used this situation as an opportunity to talk about more gun laws.  Again, more laws wouldn't have prevented the shooting in Charleston just as it wouldn't have stopped what happened in Sandy Hook or out in Colorado.  But, there's a good tragedy to exploit, so this is a golden opportunity to try to restrict legal access to guns even more so.  

 

Nobody is coming out directly and blaming guns or flags, but all you need to do is look at where the outrage is right now and that's exactly what's happening.   You've got a state legislature debating whether they should remove a flag from a monument or not.  You've got national politicians opining the fact that there needs to be more gun control. 

 

Someone said earlier in this discussion that they were amazed at how bipartisan this has been.  What were they expecting?  What conservative who has aspirations to remain in public office is going to go against the mob here?  Not one. 

I don't disagree there is unwarranted attention to ancillary subjects, but that doesn't mean people aren't blaming the shooter.

Quote:I don't disagree there is unwarranted attention to ancillary subjects, but that doesn't mean people aren't blaming the shooter.

 

But that's not where the majority of the focus is.  Even on this board, look at the last few pages and take into consideration the predilection of those involved in this discussion, and you can see what happens.  I don't need to point it out. 

 

The shooter is the true problem here.  The breakdown in the system that SHOULD have prevented him from ever obtaining a firearm legally should be the focus.  Not the need for more gun laws.  Not some flag.

Quote:But that's not where the majority of the focus is. Even on this board, look at the last few pages and take into consideration the predilection of those involved in this discussion, and you can see what happens. I don't need to point it out.


The shooter is the true problem here. The breakdown in the system that SHOULD have prevented him from ever obtaining a firearm legally should be the focus. Not the need for more gun laws. Not some flag.

Yea that would be nice. I offered up a solution but the gun nuts can't even consider anything because #freedom.

Quote:Yea that would be nice. I offered up a solution but the gun nuts can't even consider anything because #freedom.

 

Thanks for making my point.

Quote:Thanks for making my point.

You are welcome.

Quote:Same thing is true for those in this same thread who have used this situation as an opportunity to talk about more gun laws.  Again, more laws wouldn't have prevented the shooting in Charleston just as it wouldn't have stopped what happened in Sandy Hook or out in Colorado.  But, there's a good tragedy to exploit, so this is a golden opportunity to try to restrict legal access to guns even more so.  

 

Nobody is coming out directly and blaming guns or flags, but all you need to do is look at where the outrage is right now and that's exactly what's happening.   

I love how you selectively see what you want to see.

 

Do I blame guns? No. In fact, ask me sometime about my thoughts on gun control, welfare, immigration, education or taxation, and you might see how right of center I am on certain issues. A person who should not have had a gun used one to kill nine people. I repeat: a person who should not have had a gun used one to kill nine people. Is it the gun's fault that it was in the hands of a racist sociopath with a "mission"? No. A gun doesn't kill people without being loaded, pointed at them, and the trigger pulled. In this case, that was a willful act by a true piece of crap of a human being, and the blame lies solely with him, but some responsibility lies with the system that failed to identify him as someone who should not have been able to acquire a gun. Asking what we can do in terms of creating new laws or revisiting and revising ones currently on the books to keep it from happening again is a fair question.

 

Answer me this, and I know it's a "liberal" question. Why is it that America has such a high rate of violent crime involving guns compared to the rest of the first world? If you can't answer that question, then why should sitting around and pointing at existing policies that clearly failed in this case (and many others) as things that shouldn't be revisited a valid response to any of this? Far-left liberals might want your guns, yeah, and attitudes like that aren't going to get us anywhere. Believe it or not, there is middle ground to be had on gun control. Extended waiting periods, medical background checks (I would argue that keeping a gun away from a schizo trumps the right to privacy), limitations on magazine size and number/type of weapons owned, all things that don't eliminate the right to firearms, but do help to limit the ability of people who shouldn't have guns to get them, and can mitigate the body count when the worst does happen.

 

Sometimes I wish some of you right-wingers would go back to look at the original intent of the Second Amendment. The Founding Fathers never envisioned assault rifles with 30-round magazines that fire twice a second. Shoot, they never envisioned pistols small enough to fit four of them with ten-round magazines inside a single trenchcoat. The Second Amendment was written so that states could form and maintain "well-regulated" militas, not so that someone can amass twelve handguns, four shotguns, six rifles and 10,000 rounds of ammunition. Once you take that little detail into account, suddenly the "right to bear arms" is cast in a new light.

 

So do I blame a gun or a stupid flag for the shootings? No, and anyone doing so is either pushing an agenda or being an idiotic parrot. Is it fair to expect that the shootings of nine innocent people by one person who shouldn't have had a gun would stir the national conversation back up? Yes, entirely so, and I hope we get away from this stupid, treasonous flag and back to the issues that matter: respecting the victims first and foremost, and working to figure out how we can reduce the chances of this happening again.

Quote:I love how you selectively see what you want to see.

 

Do I blame guns? No. In fact, ask me sometime about my thoughts on gun control, welfare, immigration, education or taxation, and you might see how right of center I am on certain issues. A person who should not have had a gun used one to kill nine people. I repeat: a person who should not have had a gun used one to kill nine people. Is it the gun's fault that it was in the hands of a racist sociopath with a "mission"? No. A gun doesn't kill people without being loaded, pointed at them, and the trigger pulled. In this case, that was a willful act by a true piece of crap of a human being, and the blame lies solely with him, but some responsibility lies with the system that failed to identify him as someone who should not have been able to acquire a gun. Asking what we can do in terms of creating new laws or revisiting and revising ones currently on the books to keep it from happening again is a fair question.

 

Answer me this, and I know it's a "liberal" question. Why is it that America has such a high rate of violent crime involving guns compared to the rest of the first world? If you can't answer that question, then why should sitting around and pointing at existing policies that clearly failed in this case (and many others) as things that shouldn't be revisited a valid response to any of this? Far-left liberals might want your guns, yeah, and attitudes like that aren't going to get us anywhere. Believe it or not, there is middle ground to be had on gun control. Extended waiting periods, medical background checks (I would argue that keeping a gun away from a schizo trumps the right to privacy), limitations on magazine size and number/type of weapons owned, all things that don't eliminate the right to firearms, but do help to limit the ability of people who shouldn't have guns to get them, and can mitigate the body count when the worst does happen.

 

Sometimes I wish some of you right-wingers would go back to look at the original intent of the Second Amendment. The Founding Fathers never envisioned assault rifles with 30-round magazines that fire twice a second. Shoot, they never envisioned pistols small enough to fit four of them with ten-round magazines inside a single trenchcoat. The Second Amendment was written so that states could form and maintain "well-regulated" militas, not so that someone can amass twelve handguns, four shotguns, six rifles and 10,000 rounds of ammunition. Once you take that little detail into account, suddenly the "right to bear arms" is cast in a new light.

 

So do I blame a gun or a stupid flag for the shootings? No, and anyone doing so is either pushing an agenda or being an idiotic parrot. Is it fair to expect that the shootings of nine innocent people by one person who shouldn't have had a gun would stir the national conversation back up? Yes, entirely so, and I hope we get away from this stupid, treasonous flag and back to the issues that matter: respecting the victims first and foremost, and working to figure out how we can reduce the chances of this happening again.

 

Asking what we can do by creating new laws would have done zero in this or many mass shootings in this country.  The problem isn't the laws.  There are more than enough laws on the books in every state to control the sale of guns, and even in this instance, it was a breakdown in the system, and NOT a lack of laws that allowed this guy to obtain a firearm from a dealer.  So, are you suggesting we should make a new law that addresses the state and federal background check system to get it right when it completely whiffed on this guy during that process?  Because there are already laws on the books that SHOULD have prevented him from making that purchase.  That being said, even if the system worked, and the purchase was blocked, this guy would have found a way to obtain a weapon illegally.  In other words, he would have broken a law to get the weapon if his intent (which is obvious after the fact) was to kill blacks in order to outwardly express his hatred.

 

You might want to look at actual statistics on gun violence.  When it comes to incidents like this involving firearms, the US actually ranks well behind quite a few nations, including a few who have far more restrictive gun laws than we already have.  Feel free to dispute the facts.  I actually made sure it was a good liberal publication that was posting these numbers. 

 

While it would be nice for those numbers to be even lower, the reality is that the rate of violent crimes specifically involving firearms isn't even close to the highest.

 

Failed policies wasn't the issue here.  A failed system that didn't catch multiple flags for this particular shooter allowed this guy to get a gun.  The laws, including the one that prevents legal gun owners with concealed carry permits to bring a firearm into a church in SC, did nothing to prevent this guy from doing what he wanted to do, and again, if murder was his intention, no law was going to prevent that from happening.  He would have found a way after planning this for months.  There are already laws on the books keeping guns away from someone who is dealing with a mental illness and who is also medicated, or who has been charged with a felony.  The laws exist.  It wasn't the lack of laws that failed here. 

 

Ah, the assault rifle argument.  You're good for the usual talking points, that's for sure.  Who needs 30 rounds?  Who needs high capacity mags?  We don't want to ban guns!  We just want to limit the number of bullets you can put in one!  Again, this guy reportedly RELOADED FIVE TIMES during the shooting.  There are laws on the books in many states that restrict the size of magazines.  How would that have helped here?  Even if he had a 7 round mag, he reloaded FIVE TIMES.  That's still 35 rounds of ammunition.  You get that, right?  He didn't use an assault rifle,  He didn't use a high capacity magazine.  So, your talking  points are meaningless. 

 

Evidently, someone has a very different interpretation of the 2nd Amendment from you.  This has been challenged multiple times, and your viewpoint always ends up on the losing end of the argument.  Keep trying though!  Eventually those talking points will really get you somewhere I'm sure!

 

I don't really care about the flag issue.  It's nothing more than a distraction orchestrated by the usual suspects.  I do agree that we need to get back to the real issue here, which is the fact that the laws on the books were not properly applied in this instance.  Somewhere along the way, the mandated background checks failed to pick up what should have been blatantly obvious flags.  That will need to be addressed.  But, that doesn't require any more laws. 

Quote:*snipped*

So essentially what you're saying is that nine people died in a mass shooting, and there's no reason to talk about how to keep it from happening again. Do I have that about right?

Quote:So essentially what you're saying is that nine people died in a mass shooting, and there's no reason to talk about how to keep it from happening again. Do I have that about right?

 

Not even remotely close, but twist it however you need to do so in order to feel like your moral superiority is winning a debate. 

 

The truth is I agree that there needs to be a discussion about how to keep it from happening again.  We disagree on where the focus needs to be, but hey, you focus on more laws and regulation because that would have saved lives in this instance, right?