Because of slavery? So the Union States which included Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri that still had slavery were the good guys? Please elaborate.
The elaboration is that each of those states were border states, three of which along the Mason-Dixon Line. Each one had so much internal struggle that the battles therein were microcosms of the war itself. They weren't simply pro-slavery Union states.
Maybe you shouldn't have shot the president that was holding the line against an angry retributive congress in favor of a bonafide conciliatory reconstruction.
Should we really count the actions of one man against an entire region? I will say that this article really made sense to me though. It's a complicated concept down here. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...s-i-was-wrong-about-the-confederate-flag.html
You are correct, they were states that wanted to remain neutral. They didn't want to secede. Lincoln suspended habius corpus after Maryland asked to have troops removed from their borders and arrested a good deal of their elected officials without charges. Those states also continued to hold their slaves throughout most of the war. What I was asking for elaboration on was Crown's blanket statement the the South WERE the bad guys. It's wasn't quite that simple.
The thing is though...you all are debating history intelligently and discussing complicated politics from a tumultuous time. Can we seriously apply the level of discourse here to average piece of shit who currently flies that flag? You KNOW they don't know the history or even how to read above the 8th grade reading level.
That's why I asked the question in the first place... I really have no idea how those types relate to or associate with the flag... is it just a Dukes of Hazzard kind of "look at me, I'm a good ol boy" thing? Do they think "the south will rise again"?
I would have sympathy for the "Southern Heritage" argument if the flag had any history or association with the South before the war. As it stands however, the flag is associated with the Confederate cause, and only the Confederate cause. And that cause is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery, or, in their own words, "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery."
Pretty much what gamecocks said. You have your good ol boy, Lynyrd Skynyrd, rednecks that just take it as a symbol of the Southern lifestyle....muddin;, fishin', huntin', spittin', fightin'. And then you have the out and out hate-filled, racist, dipshits that use it as as symbol of their collective stupidity. Personally, I think the only place it should be displayed is at Confederate graves.
I had a hearty LOL. You won't find middle ground with most gun owners when it comes to "federalizing" and gun rights. Connecting HIPPA with NCIS opens another can(s) of worms on the standards of what would make people ineligible (taking anti depressants?, having a certain mental disorder (banning PTSD will piss off veterans for sure)?) Who has the power or authority to deem someone ineligible (is it just the word of a psychiatrist)? Judge has to sign off? There has to be a decent mechanism for reinstating your rights too. There are already nightmare stories about gun owners in states that have restrictions like this and there is either no way to petition for your rights back or it is near worthless to attempt it with the bureaucracy involved. Someone who spent a few days in a mental hospital* is or had say a jilted lover file a restraining order shouldn't be barred for life from owning guns. Hell a lot of the gun community is in favor of giving felons a path back to gun ownership, the argument goes, if they are too dangerous to be trusted with a gun, they shouldn't be amongst the public to begin with. *I think a case from Michigan is winding its way through federal court now on this very subject. Guy voluntarily committed himself for a few days after a divorce or something like 20 years ago, which barred him in Michigan from buying guns, and they don't have a way to petition for that right back.
In my experience (Texas), that is exactly it. I'm not saying it's the correct (in my opinion) thing to do, but that's how it's intended and by and large received when people display it. It's kind of like someone throwing a gang sign because he thinks he's tough and likes the stereotype that goes along with it, yet he really isn't in a gang, doesn't know the meaning behind the sign he's using because he just saw it somewhere, and the closest he's gotten to actual violence was playing Call of Duty while listening to DMX in his room. Also, worth noting that Walmart has decided to stop selling all Confederate Flag merchandise.
You laugh, but thats the way it already is in New England. In MA, your right to carry is determined by each individual town's police chief and they can just turn down your application if they dont like the cut of your jib, no reason is given. In Boston? youll be lucky if your application gets reviewed within 1 year and even then, youll be granted a Class-A Restricted permit. That allows you to keep a firearm in your home and transport to and from a gun range. Class-A Unrestricted are granted to specific groups of people based on need, such as money couriers, lawyers, or individuals that have had threats made against them. So uniformity, even at a state level would help resolve that headache. I think a lot of gun owners would be more open to a federalize option than you think. But of course, some checkpoints have to be put in place to make sure people can appeal decisions, reapply, etc. But I dont think its out of bounds to suggest that if you've committed a felony or are using anti-psychotic medication that you shouldnt be granted allowed to have a gun.
Ok, the argument that certain states had slaves but didn't secede isn't an argument against the fact that the Confederate flag was created during Secession and in many people's minds is the equivalent of 'Pro Slavery' - because frankly that was the main reason that war was fought. More directly, the flag represents 'Rebellion' plain and simple. It also represents treason. Shake it, bake it, throw it in the oven for as long as someone cares to, but those are the 'facts.' The South seceded over slavery, and their flag was the Confederate flag. It was created specifically for that purpose - to represent the States that left Union. Now, if you want to have a discussion as to whether or not under the Constitution the Confederacy had a right to withdraw, then I can bore you with a legal analysis. But history is history, the South seceded, and that was the symbol of their secession. In essence, gun laws are already 'federalized.' All state laws must be consistent with the Supreme Court and Federal law. While the individual states process and determine whom may carry a firearm, if their law is inconsistent with the federal laws, it will be challenged and overturned. Again, I think both the 'registration' and 'mental health' arguments are specious. As noted in the articles I quoted in a prior post - most of the weapons used in these shooting are obtained legally. Then, invariably, someone in the household - usually a young man - uses the weapon that was legally sold to a parent/guardian. So registration isn't going to prevent that scenario. Mental health requirements aren't going to prevent that scenario. So again, I point out - the obvious (and proven - hi there Australia!) way to reduce gun deaths is to reduce the number of guns. This isn't rocket science, but people like to turn the conversation from the glaringly obvious because they don't like the answer. Which is fine. I'm not saying 'we must get rid of all the guns.' What I am saying is 'if you want less gun deaths, then we need to get rid of some of the guns.' But the first part of the prior sentence is key. IF that's what you want. If living in a society that allows fairly easy access to a lot of weapons is important to you, so be it, but we all know the cost. If you're comfortable with that cost, because you feel having a weapon is more important, ok, not for me to tell you what you feel. But what I feel is these other 'issues' are largely bullshit and the American public needs to do a better job of demanding a real debate - so that we can either decide collectively that 'hey, we like the guns, we don't like dead kids, but such is the price of freedom' - and that is correct - after all, Thomas Jefferson said 'the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.' But here's the thing - you don't get to decide whose blood is watering that tree, so you have to accept the dead as part of that 'freedom.' For those that think the reduction of dead at the cost of freedom have to realize that if you accept that argument, then that argument must be accepted in cases where maybe they like that particular freedom. Like cars, or booze, or cigarettes, or any number of things that result in death.
But thats not a solution either. Getting of what, exactly? "Assault rifles?" Great, now define what an "assault rifle" is. Dark grey and scary looking isn't exactly a defining characteristic. And someone taking their parent's gun isn't a legally obtained firearm, its a stolen one. And if your firearm is stolen and used in the commission of a crime, you are still responsible for it if its within 24 hours, but its still not a legally obtained firearm. Overall, gun crime has dropped dramatically over the last 20 years, no matter how much or how little press gun violence receives.
I never said 'assault weapons' - this again is a specious argument. Most gun deaths, accidental and intentional, are by handgun. When I said 'guns' - I meant all types, dicing them up into groups of good or bad is a waste of time. They are all created with one purpose - to accelerate a piece of metal to such a speed that it destroys what it hits. And of course in my scenario the guns are 'stolen' - my point remains that by putting legal guns in the 'stream' so to speak, you can't prevent through registration and mental health evaluations where those guns end up. Also, look at your quoted study. While it is true it's gone down in the last 20 years, it remains constant with the 40 year (1985) number.
I know you didnt specifically point out assault weapons, I just was using that as an example of what that argument typically is framed upon. My core question is, what is involved in reducing the number of guns?
There are a number of ways to reduce guns. Without commenting on the feasibility of them in this country - Australia made sweeping changes to the legal ability to get firearms coupled with a large buyback program. You could amend the Constitution. You could then pass laws preventing people from owning weapons. Again, not saying I support any of that, just saying this is what the conversation needs to be - if we want to reduce firearm deaths then we need to get rid of guns. How do you do that and balance it against freedom? My initial thought is voluntary relinquishment. Again, from the article I quoted - there are 88 guns per 100 people in this country. It stands to reason that there is no way to forever keep those weapons out of the hands of people that will use them for nefarious purpose. Someone, even a legal gun owner who uses the weapon for legal purposes, can get robbed, have a loved one use it (without consent), misplace it, or just forget about the weapon. I'll put this argument in another (and admittedly extreme) light: imagine that everyone could get a bomb. Would someone eventually use it for an illegal purpose? Of course. There are assholes among us. But it's one thing to put the asshole in proximity to shovels and baseball bats and quite another to put them in proximity to grenades, bombs and guns. One scenario yields tragedy, the other yields catastrophe. I again state that I am not advocating for anything other than an honest discussion by the American public about this issue. I'm trying to clear away the brush so we can walk through the forrest and see where we all collectively want to go once we can see clearly.