Speakin'a the school shooting

Please explain to me how the US government was out of control before the outbreak of the first American Civil War.
I know the war was not about slavery to begin with. What was it about? What caused the rebellion initially?

I am puzzled by your reference to an American Empire. As someone living in a country that was once part of the British Empire I cannot easily equate US overseas territories with The British Raj.



First of all, the North was notably Puritan Republican while the South was heavily settled by Scots, Jacobites and Cavaliers which is why some historians believe the American civil war was a continuation of the English civil wars. In some Confederate war poetry, Yankees are referred to as Puritans and Southerners as Cavaliers.

Second, the initial animosity between North and South was economic.

Southerners produced raw materials which were sent to Northern factories to manufacture into finished goods. The US government placed high tariff taxes on foreign made goods. However, foreign raw materials were free of tariffs. Thus Northern industry enjoyed tariff protection for Northern finished goods... while Southerners struggled with foreign raw material competition. The South either imported finished goods or had them shipped from the North. Because import tariff taxes were cheaper than shipping costs from the North, Southerners actually paid most of the tariff tax money coming into the federal government coffers [90% of US government revenue at the time.] The federal government used that Southern paid tariff tax money to benefit the North by building more Northern infrastructure [roads, railroads, canals, etc.] Southerners rightly believed they were being intentionally economically exploited by the North. The irony is... economic exploitation by the North on the South extended to Southern slaves.

Third, the civil war was a fight over individual states rights versus a strong centralized US government. Many Southerners share my belief that the American republic died in the civil war and the American empire was born. This is primarily because the individual states lost much of their power and are now ruled over and dictated too by a strong central government.
 

.

The tariff issue might be difficult to understand but it was a major factor. Bottom-line, the South paid most of the tariff taxes
which funded 90% the US government... but the US government turned around and spent the tax money to benefit the North.

Ironically, when Lincoln "freed the slaves" in his Emancipation Proclamation, it only symbolically "freed slaves" in Southern states
who had already seceded from the Union. The US government had no control over those slaves. In other words, it was merely a
propaganda war tactic. Northern slaves were not freed until after the war. The 13th amendment, which abolished slavery in the
USA, was not passed until six months after the war ended.
 

Interesting. I have watched the TV documentary series The Civil War and I got the impression that the "free states" had already emancipated their slaves.


You are thinking of the Northern states as one unit. Before the civil war, individual states had varying laws on slavery.
That is how the civil war birthed the American empire... via a victorious strong central federal government taking away
much of former state sovereignty [ie, states rights.]
 
I am on a learning curve here. I've just revisited that education (for dummies) site and found the part about the Emancipation Proclamation (executive order) and some reference to loyal (to the Union) states that were not covered by the proclamation. I haven't found anything yet about the issue of tariffs but I will keep looking for a simple text. I am something of an economic illiterate.

Found what I am looking for and understand the issue now.

http://www.marottaonmoney.com/protective-tariffs-the-primary-cause-of-the-civil-war/
 
Whose side was Jefferson on, the rebels or the tyrants?

I ask because students in Florida are calling for change or rebellion.
They want change to gun legislation and are prepared to rebel to get it.
They want to end the killings. Perhaps they are the true patriots.

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/02/17/us/florida-student-emma-gonzalez-speech/index.html

This won't be a very popular post ...

How are they rebelling? By staying home on 4/20, oddly enough the national Marijuana Day. Tell me that didn't cross their minds during the planning phase. They're high school kids.

I see staying out of school for one day as being the equivalent of lighting candles at memorial services - it might make the participants feel better but doesn't chnge a thing in the real world.

Mindless rebellion is worse than no rebellion at all.
 
Like most student rebellions it is probably futile but if they become a rallying point for a more general protest, change may be possible.

Okay, that makes sense. Thank you.

That is happened in Australia at the Eureka Stockade. In that case it was miners, not students. Although defeated by the government troops, the miners did achieve all their demands which were later legislated by the Victorian government.

https://www.britannica.com/event/Eureka-Stockade

https://www.sbs.com.au/gold/story.php?storyid=86

Interesting history - thanks again.
 
The answer is that no-one does need one.
People with a gun fetish think they need one, or two, or three ... and so they are still on sale and easy to get.

Is anyone asking how this teenager was able to get his hands on one?

The AR-15 is fun to shoot while at the range. I don’t own one, but my son does. If nothing else, the rifle itself is a great intimidator. It’s like if someone pointed a .44 magnum at your head with a 10 inch barrel and had a tactical light mounted on it. If I would have a handgun like that and pointed it at someone and they kept coming at me, I would assume that they are a nut job.

We we have a nice selection of AR-15s in the Barracks, among other more sophisticated arms, but if I was going to shoot at someone close range, I would prefer a 12-gauge shotgun.
 
But we are not talking about taking all guns away are we.


Like the famous analogy of boiling the frog... eroding gun rights leading to total gun confiscation would be incremental.
Protesting the loss of liberty in small increments should began with the first loss.
 
Like the famous analogy of boiling the frog... eroding gun rights leading to total gun confiscation would be incremental.
Protesting the loss of liberty in small increments should began with the first loss.

There are already laws on the books prohibiting weapons. It hasn't had a major impact on the ownership of guns in the country has it.?

I really think this worrying that the government is going to confiscate everyone's guns in the U.S. is a crock.
 
There are already laws on the books prohibiting weapons. It hasn't had a major impact on the ownership of guns in the country has it.?

I really think this worrying that the government is going to confiscate everyone's guns in the U.S. is a crock.


A crock ?..I dunno, but what I do believe could happen is.....after they approach the first household [to] confiscate ,...all the others might just 'rise-up' . Then we will be in deep doo-doo.
 
This same sort of talk occurred in Australia in 1996.

"They're coming to take away our guns" "Over my dead body, they will" etc etc.

I personally knew a couple who thought the government wanted to take away the rifles they used for 'roo shooting. They vowed to bury them under the house as the Scots did with their claymores centuries ago.

It was all unnecessary steam. The government offered an amnesty and time for illegal guns to be handed in. There was also a buy back scheme to reduce the total number of guns in circulation. Also a proper registration scheme was introduced which was a great help to police who happened to be called out to domestic violence incidents.

No authority ever went into homes looking for firearms unless they were after criminals, so all of the "law abiding gun owners" were quite safe. When raiding the houses of known criminals the police always assume that firearms will be present, registration or not.

In the end, certain categories of firearms are tightly restricted, others less so. Some are prohibited altogether. People can still train for the Olympics, shoot feral pigs etc and have firearms necessary for self protection if their work requires them to carry large sums of money. Not being a gun owner I would have to look up the regulations but they are perfectly consistent with balancing public safety against personal need.

Our government, while often inept, is not tyrannical. In reality they are shit scared of the voters.
 
A crock ?..I dunno, but what I do believe could happen is.....after they approach the first household [to] confiscate ,...all the others might just 'rise-up' . Then we will be in deep doo-doo.



In 1831 the Anglo settlers of Gonzales, Texas asked for a cannon to protect them from hostile Indians.
The Mexican government provided a cannon but said it reserved the right to take it back at anytime.

In 1835 Mexican soldiers were sent to Gonzales to confiscate the cannon. The Gonzales settlers sent back
notice that they were keeping both the cannon and the soldiers [as POWs.]

So the Mexican government sent over a hundred troops to confiscate the cannon.

Gonzales Anglo settlers along with a militia company of thirty mounted Indian fighters prepared the cannon
for battle. Their ladies made a flag for the battle, an image of the cannon and the words: "Come and Take It"

http://www.usflags.com/images/thumbs/0000731.jpeg


The battle of Gonzales is considered to be the first battle of the Texas Revolution.

"Come and Take It" became one of the rallying cries of the Texas Revolution.
 
.

Ahhh... the 1830s, when men were men and ladies were thankful of it.
Hmmm. Grateful to have been spared the majority of my children dying before they reached maturity, grateful to not have died of childbirth complications. Appreciate the opportunity to easily own property, a bank account, have a rewarding career, to vote, not to be viewed as a chattel. Love manly men, yes, that is you, Philly, but as their equal partner, not their pet.
 
A lesson from history - the Rum Rebellion of 1808.

On 26th January 1808, officers and men of the New South Wales Corps marched to Government House in Sydney in an act of rebellion against Governor William Bligh. Bligh was arrested and the colony was placed under military rule. This was the only successful armed takeover of government in Australian history.

The NSW Corps was corrupt, having gained control over imported rum, which became the effective currency in the fledgling colony. Accordingly they were referred to as the Rum Corps.

In cahoots with the corrupt officers was a wealthy landowner, one John MacArthur, who had a monopoly over sheep and was keeping the price of mutton high to the detriment of other settlers struggling to eke out a living north of Sydney. Macarthur had arrived with the New South Wales Corps in 1790 as a lieutenant, and by 1805 he had substantial farming and commercial interests in the colony. He had quarrelled with Bligh's predecessor governors and had fought three duels. Bligh and Macarthur's interests clashed in a number of ways. Bligh stopped Macarthur from cheaply distributing large quantities of rum into the Corps. He also halted Macarthur's illegal importation of stills.

Bligh, under instructions from the Colonial Office, attempted to normalise trading conditions in the colony by prohibiting the use of spirits as payment for commodities. Members of the Rum Corps refused to follow Bligh's orders and on Jan 26. 1808, the Corps, with full band and colours, marched to Government House to arrest Bligh. They were hindered by Bligh's daughter and her parasol but Bligh was finally found, in full dress uniform, behind his bed where he claimed he was hiding papers. Bligh returned to England and was exonerated of all wrong doing.

The colony was now in the hands of corrupt men and remained so for the next two years until the arrival of Governor Lachlan Macquarie who dismissed the entire Rum Corps and sent them back to England in disgrace. He replaced them with a regiment loyal to himself and a new era of progress and enlightenment began.

As with the story of the purloined Mexican cannon, the moral of this story is not immediately obvious. I would suggest that one version might be that only a well regulated and highly disciplined militia should be trusted with firearms.
 
A crock ?..I dunno, but what I do believe could happen is.....after they approach the first household [to] confiscate ,...all the others might just 'rise-up' . Then we will be in deep doo-doo.
That's a really highly unlikely scenario. It's a fabrication perpetuated by the gun lobby to maintain the status quo.
I cannot think of one instance where a weapon has been confiscated without a crime being committed.
 
.

As I understand your history... Australia was once used as an Anglo penal colony.
It was. After the American War of Independence England had nowhere to transport convicts that it had previously dumped on the 13 American colonies so a settlement was begun at Port Jackson (now Sydney Harbour). As well as the convicts there was a regiment and civil servants to administer the colony and over time free settlers arrived and convicts who had completed their sentences stayed on, mostly as farmers but also as architects and builders. One was even a doctor. All transportation ended in the mid 19th Century. By then the Australian gold rush was on and immigration was at a high level.
 
That's a really highly unlikely scenario. It's a fabrication perpetuated by the gun lobby to maintain the status quo.
I cannot think of one instance where a weapon has been confiscated without a crime being committed.

Under current law you are correct...but the anti-gun lobby keeps pushing , and I believe gaining some strength . All it would take to become viable is for a change in the law, and that only takes enough votes, and a pen.
 
but the anti-gun lobby keeps pushing ,

And who exactly is the "anti-gun lobby," rpg? The vast majority of U.S. citizens? The people who have seen more than enough slaughter of innocents for one lifetime? I have never heard this
ridiculous term used before. There is a gun lobby, aka the NRA, but an anti gun lobby? That refers to nearly everyone!

I haven't heard any government plots to break into law-abiding people's homes and remove their guns. That's complete NRA paranoia, which works with their naive, angry, and not-too-intelligent followers. There is no truth to it, it's just another right-wing scare tactic.
 


Back
Top