{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
Edited by Quantum:
1/21/2013 6:37:41 AM
17
Irrespective of the need for gun regulations/the current situation, I agree.
Guns don't protect your rights, they never have, and generally those who have rebelled non-violently and violently to protect their rights have been on the wrong side of history (cough 1860s, 1960s).
Edit: Let me clarify: civilian militias are not fighting for a universal right set, rather their own agendas.
English
-
[quote]Guns don't protect your rights, they never have,[/quote]18th Century American Colonies and their right to representation would like to have a word with you.
-
[quote]Guns don't protect your rights, they never have[/quote] Uh...
-
On a grand scale, not nitpicking the "right to self defense" and other possible motives.
-
[quote] generally those who have rebelled non-violently and violently to protect their rights have been on the wrong side of history [/quote] So how are you supposed to rebel, if not non-violently or violently? Ask nicely?
-
Edited by Quantum: 1/21/2013 5:38:28 AMI'm just saying that many of the people who refer to rebelling tend to be modern equivalent GOP members/GOP states, i.e the South rises again, and they have been on the wrong side of history. Rebelling for the wrong reasons, historically. More accurately, dixiecrats/conservatives, the party lines have changed since the 1860s.
-
Hmm, I am not GOP, I am not in the South, and I fully support our right to rebel if the need arises. I don't believe the South should rise again. A racist democrat control south would be awful. Then again, the Democratic party isn't much better today than it was back in the 60's.
-
Your first comment says they were rebelling to protect their rights and now you say they are rebelling for the wrong reasons. Rebelling to protect your rights is a good reason to rebel.
-
Yes, if you consider slavery a right, along with segregation, and perhaps the "sanctity of marriage"? All three are stupid, discriminatory reasons, and we shall see the fall of the 3rd one shortly.
-
If you want to believe those were the primary forces for them to rebel you are mistaken and we have nothing further to discuss. Good day.
-
Edited by Quantum: 1/21/2013 5:50:48 AMThey were certainly a contributing factor. Do you mind elaborating instead of exiting the discussion? [quote]People maintain that the South supports state's rights, that it is why they fought the Civil War, that it is a noble position, etc etc. It simply isn't true. The Civil War was not caused by the federal government repressing the Southern states on the slavery issue. The Civil War was caused by the federal government refusing to repress the Northern states on the slavery issue at the behest of the Southern states that had previously dominated it. This double standard hasn't changed one iota between then and modern day. Currently, southern conservatives are simultaneously pushing gay marriage bans in Southern states, while advocating an amendment to override gay marriage legalizations in Northern states. The reality is that southern conservatives have been about one thing. Enforcing their regressive values on others, through any means possible, federal, state, or local. They are not interested in self-determination of any sort.[/quote]
-
I am not disagreeing with you that they were a contributing factor. It was. It just wasn't a primary reason. It's late, where I am (or really early) but I'll see... To start, many of the people who fought for the Confederate weren't slave owners. It was about preserving a way of life (yes a messed up one, one where owning people was looked as ok), but to them they or their parents had just moved halfway across the world some 80-100 years ago. They would be damned if someone states away was going to tell them how to live. Maryland and Delaware, two slave states, did not secede along with the South. That link seems to have a decent explanation, and looks at it from two sides.
-
True, but remember that it was actually the reverse as well, see my edited post. This same is still true today.
-
Guns were still used to protect the rights and way of life of each side during the Civil War. So going back to your original comment, you are wrong. Guns were used to protect the rights of each side during the Civil War and as well during the War of 1812 and the Revolutionary War.
-
Edited by Quantum: 1/21/2013 6:09:22 AMI was referring to civilian owned guns, as opposed to proper military units. Somebody owning an AR15 isn't going to do much, but get himself and his rebel buddies killed for rebelling against the government. Perhaps that sentence was a bit vague, I'll clarify: civilian militias do not protect universal rights. They only force agendas.
-
Civilians were the ones who fought in the Revolutionary War. Civilians fought in the Civil War. Somebody owning an AR15 has a better chance at protecting his life, his family's life, his property better than someone with no AR15.
-
Yes, but whether that is for universal rights, as opposed to agenda is different.
-
Edited by MurcSpyder: 1/21/2013 6:18:30 AMThat makes no sense.
