Reading the Constitution

[tzor]

Ultimately, it took a Civil War, 600,000 dead, and a constitutional amendment to overrule this case. Not exactly the most ideal result.

Actually, the Civil War delayed the process, but the result was better. Upon his election Lincoln had already proposed an amendment to the Constitution with strong Federalist overtones that would have prohibited the Federal government from making any regulations or decisions one way or the other on the slave issue leaving it up to the state level to decide. (Nothing on citizenship but remember Lincoln did not want slavery in the new states because he didn't want Blacks in the new states. He was constantly looking for a way to ship freed slaves back to Africa.)

The Civil War was triggered as a result of the industrial north wanting to enforce massive import tarriff laws on the agricultural south which hurt the agricultural states more than it hurt the industrial states. The slavery issue also helped to polarize the states in terms of agriculture / industry because slavery helped support the former. This wasn't the first time this was attempted, but it was the first time when the actinv president didn't stand down when faced with a massive attempt to nullify federal tarriff laws on the state level.

[angelfromanotherpin]

Declaration of causes of secession. The word 'tariff' occurs zero times.

[Count Arioch the 28th]

The civil was happened because southerners are willing to kill and die to continue obsolete and self-destructive economic processes hundreds of years after the rest of the world has abandoned them.

The "Tariff" argument is something that someone made up out of whole cloth. There is no historical basis to that fact.

[CatharzGodfoot]

The civil was happened because southerners are willing to kill and die to continue obsolete and self-destructive economic processes hundreds of years after the rest of the world has abandoned them.

Brace yourself...
20 years, it'll happen.

[Zinegata]

Tzor, Keegan's entire book never mentions external tariffs as a cause of the civil war. What the hell are you smoking?

Keegan rightly points out that the major issue of the Civil War was, from start to finish, slavery. The majority of the English-speaking world wanted it abolished on religious grounds. That's why "slavery is not allowed here" is an actual clause in many state constitutions in the North.

Keegan also points out that what the South claims as "tariffs" was actually them whining about how the North is going to take their property away - but this "property" was actually the human slaves that the rich plantation owners "owned". And these slaves - despite having no right to vote - counted in terms of representation for the purpose of electing Congressmen. Which is a grossly unfair cheating method that gave the South disproportionately more representation in the early days of the US.

The Civil War really came to a head because of the following factors:

1) The vast majority of the English-speaking world (INCLUDING large tracts of the South) wanted to abolish slavery on religious grounds. It really started in the 1800s, when the British got serious about stopping the slave trade.

2) A minority of large slave-owners wanted to maintain their wealth - much of it rested on the monetary value of slaves - and spread propaganda to convince poor Southerners that the only way to get rich was to get slaves. This was ironically helped by the British killing off the slave trade, as it drove up the price of slaves (leading to the incredible fact that the South was actually, in terms of per-capita wealth, richer than the North. However, this was an entirely illusory wealth - as demonstrated by how the Norths imply buried the South with "Send in the next wave!" tactics because they simply had that much more guns)

3) While a minority in the North (abolitionists) wanted wholesale abolition of slavery, most Northerners actually didn't care and were actually content with letting the South keep their slaves. The result was the Free/Slave State laws and compromises. States were free to determine if they allowed slavery or not - particularly important for the vast new territories the US acquired in the Mexican War and Louisiana Purchase.

4) The North's population BOOMs. As a result, the North has many more guys in Congress, because Congressmen are elected based on population. The South gets paranoid and thinks that the North will soon have enough Congressmen to get a 2/3s majority to push for an amendment banning slavery forever.

5) The South therefore maintains that there should be an equal number of Free and Slave states. Because while the number of Congressmen is determined by the size of the population, every state just gets 2 Senators regardless of population size. That way, they'll always control half of the Senate and prevent any constitutional amendments. And they whine mightily whenever a non-Southern president is elected.

6) The Dredd Scott case happens. Idiot Southern judges fear that having half of the Senate in their pocket isn't enough. Their ruling overturns the Free/Slave State laws, and says African-Americans can NEVER be American citizens - forever. Despite the fact that there are, in fact, free African-Americans with full citizenship status even in the South.

7) The North says "fuck it" and forms the Republican party. They elect Lincoln. Lincoln puts his foot down and says that he won't allow slavery in the Territories. Which means that every time a new state enters the Union, it is virtually guaranteed to be a "Free" state and will wipe out the South's grip on the Senate.

8) Secession. Fort Sumter. Bull Run. Shiloh. Antietam. Gettysburg. Vicksburg. The Wilderness. Richmond. 600,000 dead. Major, major fuck up.

[tzor]

Tzor, Keegan's entire book never mentions external tariffs as a cause of the civil war. What the hell are you smoking?

Unfortunately I don't have the book with me, as I appear to have given it out to a friend. My source is not a Lincoln appologist, but “Lincoln Unmasked: What You’re Not Supposed to Know About Dishonest Abe” by Thomas J. DiLorenzo. Crown Forum, 2006. 223 pgs. A review can be found here.

DiLorenzo, like Spooner, makes skilled use of quotations from Lincoln to support his analysis of Lincoln’s policies. “In his first inaugural address Lincoln shockingly threw down the gauntlet over the tariff issue, literally threatening the invasion of any state that failed to collect the newly doubled tariff … ‘[T]here needs to be no bloodshed or violence, and there shall be none unless it is forced upon the national authority.’ What was he [Lincoln] talking about? What might ignite bloodshed and violence? Failure to collect the tariff, that’s what … he further stated that it was his duty ‘to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion…’ In other words, Pay Up or Die” (p. 126).

Read the book.

[Red_Rob]

You can't simply say, "we want to make handguns illegal, because someone might stick one in their pants and shoot a police officer, or worse yet maybe some schoolkids because THINK OF THE CHILDREN". But people seriously do say shit like that all the time, even though it's ridiculous, and unconstitutional.

Until the government implants the V-chip in everyone's head at birth there is no way to ban someone from saying things. Which is the equivalent of outright banning guns.

As someone from England, this thread is pretty hilarious. Handguns are fucking illegal, because someone might stick one in their pants and shoot a police officer. Or worse yet, maybe some schoolkids.

Jesus, what the fuck do you all want to carry guns around for anyway?

[tzor]

As someone from England, this thread is pretty hilarious. Handguns are fucking illegal, because someone might stick one in their pants and shoot a police officer. Or worse yet, maybe some schoolkids.

Jesus, what the fuck do you all want to carry guns around for anyway?

Then feet should be illegal, because you can easily kick a police officer in the crotch. Cars should be illegal, because you can run over a police officer. Basically speaking the fear of going behind bars in a small little cell for the rest of your God damned miserable existance should be the factor that keeps us from doing nasty things to police officers; trying to simply eliminate all the possible tools of harmind police officers is an almost impossible task.

For the record I don't carry a gun around. However, there are a number of very letigimate reasons why one can carry a gun around, not to mention that in the United States the deer don't belong to the King, but to the people. (Oh poor little babmi ... not when their population is growing out of control and the ticks that ride the deer carry something called lyme disease.)

[Red_Rob]

Cars and feet have a useful primary function that isn't killing things. Even knives have that (although it's also illegal to walk around carrying a knife here).

What are some of these very legitimate reasons? I assume the culling of overpopulated animals is why you can get a gun license if you live in downtown New York...

[Darth Rabbitt]

For the record I don't carry a gun around. However, there are a number of very letigimate reasons why one can carry a gun around, not to mention that in the United States the deer don't belong to the King, but to the people. (Oh poor little babmi ... not when their population is growing out of control and the ticks that ride the deer carry something called lyme disease.)

No one uses handguns to hunt deer.

Red_Rob said nothing about rifles.

[PoliteNewb]

I was going to drop this, since it was pretty clear that I wasn't going to convince anyone, and could just agree to disagree. But some of this shit is ridiculous.

As someone from England, this thread is pretty hilarious. Handguns are fucking illegal, because someone might stick one in their pants and shoot a police officer. Or worse yet, maybe some schoolkids.

So I guess cops shouldn't have them either? Because y'know, they shoot schoolkids. And clearly you believe that's something that should never happen, under any circumstances, no matter what the other effects, amirite?

Oh, and I guess police are never shot over in England, because guns are illegal, right? And people are never mugged, never beaten, never raped, etc. etc. Oh wait.

Jesus, what the fuck do you all want to carry guns around for anyway?

For this. And this. And this. And the thousands (perhaps millions, depending on whose data you trust) of other times that people defend themselves with guns.

And maybe because the right to defend oneself effectively is about as basic as it gets for human rights. I'm serious, that one ranks ahead of "free speech" and "free religion"...it's there with "right to exist" and "right not to be enslaved". Even Ghandi agrees with that one.

Cars and feet have a useful primary function that isn't killing things. Even knives have that (although it's also illegal to walk around carrying a knife here).

First, whether or not the PURPOSE is killing things is irrelevant. Cars kill lots more people than guns, purpose be hanged; it is no comfort to the person dead that the thing that killed them wasn't DESIGNED for killing. Hell, Alfred Nobel didn't design dynamite to kill people, but that's sure what it got used for. This is entirely an emotional argument, that "things made for killing are BAD".

Second, I'm going to be honest and say that killing things is a useful primary function. So is wounding things, and threatening to kill things.

Are you a pacifist who believes that violence should never be used, even in defense of yourself or your loved ones?
If not, then you should either be using a weapon of some kind, or you are a fool.
and IF you accept that people can and should defend themselves, passing laws that say "you aren't entitled to do that" is insulting to people, as human beings.

I'm not even going to argue about this. Either people have a right to own and carry arms for their own defense, or people do not have a right to defend their lives. And if they don't have that right, then you are saying their lives are not valuable. Or at least, not as valuable as "the public good" or whatever the fuck you want to call it.

No one uses handguns to hunt deer.

You are an idiot.

[tzor]

No one uses handguns to hunt deer.

Some do. They are weird. I'm not going to defend them.

However his last statement was

Jesus, what the fuck do you all want to carry guns around for anyway?

Here he used the word "guns" not "handguns."

[Username17]

Bringing up the United Kingdom in a gun control debate is fucking retarded. England historically has as many murders in a year as the greater Dallas metropolitan area (less than 650 for the entire country).

If you want to argue against a link between guns and violence, and not look like a mouth breathing moron, you're supposed to bring up Canada. Although I point out: they actually do have rules about registering firearms even though they do have more guns per capita than the US.

-Username17

[Red_Rob]

Oh, and I guess police are never shot over in England, because guns are illegal, right? And people are never mugged, never beaten, never raped, etc. etc. Oh wait.

From that study you quoted:

Cultural differences and more-permissive legal standards notwithstanding, the English rate of violent crime has been soaring since 1991. Over the same period, America's has been falling dramatically. In 1999 The Boston Globe reported that the American murder rate, which had fluctuated by about 20 percent between 1974 and 1991, was "in startling free-fall." We have had nine consecutive years of sharply declining violent crime. As a result the English and American murder rates are converging. In 1981 the American rate was 8.7 times the English rate, in 1995 it was 5.7 times the English rate, and the latest study puts it at 3.5 times."

So American murders have been in "startling free fall" and are now only 3½ times the English rate? My, how convincing. The restricted firearms country has, after a massive increase, had 28% as many murders as the gun-legal country.

Who are you arguing for again?

And maybe because the right to defend oneself effectively is about as basic as it gets for human rights. I'm serious, that one ranks ahead of "free speech" and "free religion"...it's there with "right to exist" and "right not to be enslaved". Even Ghandi agrees with that one.

Guns are not the only way to defend yourself. Guns just guarantee that if a conflict does occur, someone will get shot.

First, whether or not the PURPOSE is killing things is irrelevant. Cars kill lots more people than guns, purpose be hanged; it is no comfort to the person dead that the thing that killed them wasn't DESIGNED for killing. Hell, Alfred Nobel didn't design dynamite to kill people, but that's sure what it got used for. This is entirely an emotional argument, that "things made for killing are BAD".

No. Just no. When you are deciding whether something should be illegal, its primary function is very important. A gun does nothing but kill or injure, therefore in any sane society their use should be restricted.

Are you a pacifist who believes that violence should never be used, even in defense of yourself or your loved ones?
If not, then you should either be using a weapon of some kind, or you are a fool.

I accept that it is better for society a a whole if these weapons are not available, even if during some isolated instances I would personally like to have them. I would also like to be able to walk into a Burger King and eat without paying, but I know however good that would be for me it would fuck up society if noone paid for stuff. Thats what joining a society means - accepting restrictions for the good of everyone.

I'm not even going to argue about this. Either people have a right to own and carry arms for their own defense, or people do not have a right to defend their lives. And if they don't have that right, then you are saying their lives are not valuable. Or at least, not as valuable as "the public good" or whatever the fuck you want to call it.

The problem with people is they don't always use things for the reason they are intended. Whilst a gun for defending your family against those evil rapists sounds great, its also a gun for when your wife cheats on you and you aren't thinking rationally, or when little Johnny sneaks in your room and you left the gun cabinet unlocked, or when the local addict needs money real bad to make the shakes stop. Once guns are out there they aren't going to be kept in a magical hammerspace dimension until you get attacked by muggers.

[Darth Rabbitt]

No one uses handguns to hunt deer.

You are an idiot.

Whoop de shit.

I've never hunted, and have only discussed it in any capacity with one person who was the son of a hunter, and assumed that no one would bother using a shorter-range, easily concealed, and more difficult to acquire firearm (which is, you know, ideal for using on people, whether or not you're using it for self-defense) on animals that can run fast (meaning more range is useful) and don't know what the fuck a gun (hence there being no advantage to an easily concealed weapon) is, so a rifle would be optimal.

It seems to me like bringing (only) a (non-throwing) knife to a sword fight.

Also, tzor (the only person supporting your argument) also agrees with me that people who do that are in fact, indefensibly stupid:

No one uses handguns to hunt deer.

Some do. They are weird. I'm not going to defend them.

Emphasis mine.

However his last statement was

Jesus, what the fuck do you all want to carry guns around for anyway?

Here he used the word "guns" not "handguns."

Fair enough.

[Orion]

As far as I know, no one "carries around" hunting rifles. I have no problem with someone having a hunting rifle in the back of their pickup truck, that 10 jillion times less scary than having a pistol in his pocket.

[angelfromanotherpin]

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/arc ... ths/69354/

[PoliteNewb]

So American murders have been in "startling free fall" and are now only 3½ times the English rate? My, how convincing. The restricted firearms country has, after a massive increase, had 28% as many murders as the gun-legal country.

Who are you arguing for again?

I've never denied America has much more violence than the UK. I'm arguing that it has nothing to do with the gun laws. England has historically been less violent than the US...but restricting firearms has not eliminated the violence it did have, and seems to have had the opposite effect.

Guns are not the only way to defend yourself. Guns just guarantee that if a conflict does occur, someone will get shot.

They are the only way that I (a slightly built man) can defend myself against a larger, stronger opponent, or one who is armed.
How would you suggest people with medical problems, people in wheelchairs for example, defend themselves without firearms?

And no, guns do not guarantee that someone gets shot. Guns can in fact stop a conflict without violence, because when an otherwise belligerent attacker is met with a gun, they often lose their taste for a fight. This is well documented.

No. Just no. When you are deciding whether something should be illegal, its primary function is very important. A gun does nothing but kill or injure, therefore in any sane society their use should be restricted.

So you feel killing and injuring are never called for in a sane society?

I accept that it is better for society a a whole if these weapons are not available, even if during some isolated instances I would personally like to have them.

Why do you accept that? On what evidence do you base that premise?
Society is NOT overall better off if those weapons are not available. And even if it were, you simply canNOT make those weapons unavailable. You can't even do it in England; doing it in America is impossible.

The problem with people is they don't always use things for the reason they are intended. Whilst a gun for defending your family against those evil rapists sounds great, its also a gun for when your wife cheats on you and you aren't thinking rationally, or when little Johnny sneaks in your room and you left the gun cabinet unlocked, or when the local addict needs money real bad to make the shakes stop. Once guns are out there they aren't going to be kept in a magical hammerspace dimension until you get attacked by muggers.

So what's your point exactly? That guns can be misused? No shit sherlock.
How often are guns misused compared to how often they are used properly? Take a guess? Show some statistics?

The fact that objects can be misused is no argument whatever for simply eliminating the object. ANY object can be misused.

I've never hunted, and have only discussed it in any capacity with one person who was the son of a hunter, and assumed...

So why are you making broad, declarative statements based on an uneducated assumption?

Incidentally, I don't give a rat's ass what Tzor said about handgun hunting being stupid. The point is, people do it. All the time. And this is not a big secret or anything.

Frank: is there any evidence whatever that Canada's lower level of violence has anything to do with their control of firearms? Or hell, ANY country? Switzerland gives everybody assault rifles, and you can purchase artillery pieces, and they're less violent. Mexico has extreme restrictions on firearms, and no one's going to argue they're less violent.

There's simply no correlation. People make one because they want to feel superior about their personal bias against guns.

[cthulhu]

So I guess cops shouldn't have them either? Because y'know, they shoot schoolkids. And clearly you believe that's something that should never happen, under any circumstances, no matter what the other effects, amirite?

You know cops in England don't carry guns right? The unintentional hilarity of your post is just amazing.

Cops in the UK only carry when they are part of a SWAT style team.

Really it works out pretty well.

Edit: Also, damn fucking straight cops shouldn't carry guns in general duties in the UK. It would be amazingly retarded.

[Darth Rabbitt]

I've never hunted, and have only discussed it in any capacity with one person who was the son of a hunter, and assumed...

So why are you making broad, declarative statements based on an uneducated assumption?

For the same reason I make broad, declarative statements based on an uneducated assumption that it's not a common occurrence for people to run around wearing nothing other than a Richard Nixon mask in a town square, alternating cries of "I am Napoleon!" and "The Redcoats are coming!".

Because it's fucking idiotic to do so.

Incidentally, I don't give a rat's ass what Tzor said about handgun hunting being stupid. The point is, people do it. All the time. And this is not a big secret or anything.

And sure, fine, people do it.

I admit I was wrong on that point.

People do a lot of stupid things.

[PoliteNewb]

So I guess cops shouldn't have them either? Because y'know, they shoot schoolkids. And clearly you believe that's something that should never happen, under any circumstances, no matter what the other effects, amirite?

You know cops in England don't carry guns right? The unintentional hilarity of your post is just amazing.

Cops in the UK only carry when they are part of a SWAT style team.

Really it works out pretty well.

Edit: Also, damn fucking straight cops shouldn't carry guns in general duties in the UK. It would be amazingly retarded.

I'm missing the hilarity.
Cops in England do carry guns; not all of them, but I never said all of them. In 2007-2008, British police used firearms in around 21,000 incidents...and that's SWAT weapons, as you noted...MP5 submachine guns and G36 assault rifles.
So I'll ask again: should that happen?

I'll admit I have no data on police abuse of force in the UK, at present.

As to whether it's "amazingly retarded" for cops to carry guns in general duties, the only results I can see from a policy where cops and law-abiding citizens aren't allowed to carry are:
1.) people who are bigger and stronger and better at busting heads can do whatever they want to people who are smaller and weaker.
2.) criminals, who don't care about guns laws (because they're already breaking more serious laws), can still have guns. And now cops have to wait for a SWAT team to show up to deal with them.

To DR: I have yet to see what's so "idiotic" about handgun hunting. It's a perfectly legitimate sporting pasttime. What's idiotic about it? Is it especially dangerous (and if so, how many people are injured or killed doing it)? Or do you just dislike guns, so you assume it's stupid?
Saying "that's stupid" about something you don't like stopped working when you turned ten.

[Username17]

As to whether it's "amazingly retarded" for cops to carry guns in general duties, the only results I can see from a policy where cops and law-abiding citizens aren't allowed to carry are:
1.) people who are bigger and stronger and better at busting heads can do whatever they want to people who are smaller and weaker.
2.) criminals, who don't care about guns laws (because they're already breaking more serious laws), can still have guns. And now cops have to wait for a SWAT team to show up to deal with them.

Then you have a failure of imagination.

In actual countries where there are actual gun controls in place, there are less gun crimes, and crimes which are committed are less deadly. In actual places where things are more militarized, people kill each other more often.

The reality is that no one is a criminal all the time. Even an incredibly prolific serial killer like Ted Bundy actually only kills people about once a year when you factor in his whole life. Most people who have committed heinous crimes that people seriously consider the death penalty just to get out their anger have really only done something horrible like 3 to 7 times. In their whole lives. There is no "team criminal". Even terrorist organizations like the Redemptionists, the Army of God, or The Stormfront don't commit acts of terror every year collectively.

But disagreements happen all the time. People get angry every day. Having guns around doesn't keep team criminal honest, there is no team criminal. Having guns around makes it physically easier for any random person around you to cross the line from "angry person" to "murderous felon". It's not "them and us", we are them. And if we arm ourselves, our conflicts will become more deadly.

The government has a monopoly on Force. They have tanks and the army, and no person or even political club can fight them and expect to win. That cannot happen. Putting weapons into the hands of random citizenry increases the deadliness of disagreements between random citizens. And that's all it does.

The British model of policing, where the random police on the street do not have guns but do have radios, and there are armed and armored SWAT officers on call 24/7 is a very effective policing procedure, and we should probably adopt it in the US. Yes, the British people are getting their panties twisted up about "knife crime" (I am not making that up), but that stuff is a lot less deadly to the victims and to random passersby than "gun crime" is.

-Username17

[Red_Rob]

you simply canNOT make those weapons unavailable. You can't even do it in England; doing it in America is impossible.

We are obviously never going to see eye to eye on this matter, but I will agree with you on this. Once guns are out there it is very difficult to take them out of society. I just don't see that as a good thing.

Anyway, Guns don't kill people, Rappers do! Right?

[PhoneLobster]

Once guns are out there it is very difficult to take them out of society.

And yet we did exactly that here in Australia in recent years, twice, first with needlessly dangerous automatic weaponry, and then later with needlessly concealable hand guns.

We didn't make Australia gun free, we didn't even necessarily end up with less gun owners, but we DID end up with less dangerous gun owners by removing the most excessively and needlessly dangerous guns.

The impact is rather minimal, our over all gun crime trends seem to be largely unaffected (general slow downward trend regardless), but multiple victim gun based murder rampages appear to be down. Indeed, pretty much gone entirely. It just appears those were so small in proportion to over all gun grime as to be statistically insignificant.

But hey, I think only a few, very crazy, and very unpleasant Australians would say that the gun control measures implemented in recent years haven't been worth it. I mean what sort of fuck turns to the families of the numerous dead from some murder rampage and says "your kids WOULD have lived if we had gun control, but it would have been statistically insignificant compared to me being able to wear my fucking gun in public, threaten people at political rallies with it, and wank off to it at night afterwards!"

A fucking NRA nut that's who. I'm so glad we aren't quiet as insane as America is.

In an aside note, while Howard probably just bowed to knee jerk reaction to avoid public outrage (a common trait of his) you COULD also see his gun reform moves as expert political opportunism exploiting events to get his way (another common trait of his). And as the one and only truly good thing he and his government ever did I give him full kudos for a job well done on the issue regardless, in spite of, and even especially BECAUSE of motivation or means.

[cthulhu]

2.) criminals, who don't care about guns laws (because they're already breaking more serious laws), can still have guns. And now cops have to wait for a SWAT team to show up to deal with them.

This is bullshit - the biggest sources of handguns used in violence are guns stolen from improperly secured premises, and guns purchased legally.

If you crack down on that, they have less guns. Hence, many less handguns are used in crime in the UK, because it is impossible to get handguns. Big reason why firearms should be stored in safes. In the UK and Australia, armed hold ups are some guy with a kitchen knife or a blood filled syringe.

This is the most common trope trotted out by team LETZ HAVE GUNZ LOLLERS, and it is unmitigated bullshit.