Is the confederate flag racist?

[FinalFantasy]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: FinalFantasy

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: amoeba
eh its cool, been a long time since I studied this subject too.


For those that still believe that certain states should keep around the confederate flag, please retort to this post I made above :



The connection of the confederate flag to racism can be only viewed in the context which it is displayed.

That said, it is offensive enough to some people that prohibiting its use within government symbols would not be going overboard.

Purely for the fact that its a symbol of rebellion, it should not be used as a state flag, etc....

Imagine if certain states that were predominately british loyalists during the american revolution ended up creating state flags after the war which included exact replicas of the british flag.

This country was founded on rebellion. In fact, rebellion is the duty of every patriot against an oppressive government (and the south saw the north as oppressive, whether they were right or not).

People should be offended. Constantly.

We are not just talking about "people" as you stated above...we are talking about the government of a country, a way of life and the rights of all people who live under that government. If anything...it's my right to live a happy "normal" life without having to be constantly reminded that there are some white people out there who would, if given the chance, happily kick the $h)t out of me for just being black...that's what the Confederate flag stands for today and that's what those people attitudes are like...I see people like that on a weekly, if not more, basis...that's my reality and the world I live in, but maybe it's not the same for you. Maybe "people" wouldn't constantly be offended, if more "people" would step out of their 150 mile radius they call "the world", turned off the "local news" and thought about things from another persons point of view....and just because you "vacationed" or " in another part of the country does not mean you "know" that area and it's people.

I guess my point is, you don't live my life, I don't live yours, you're NOT black and you'll never be...so you'll never understand why "black people" get offended over the, according to people like you, "little stuff" and why we "overreact" in certain situations...you'll never know why there's gangs or why "black people" like "rap music"...lol

I'm done trying to convince the ignorant...it's pointless...they do not even have the foundation or for that fact the knowledge to even begin to see the world from another person's point of view or they just refuse to...and that folks is exactly why they'll never know or learn anything new they are ignorant ("an unlearned group incapable of understanding complex issue" which for the most part includes "lack of guile or worldly experience ") and will always be ignorant.

Goodnight! ;D

I see it perfectly from your point of view. You get offended at a piece of cloth. You think you are the only black person on the forums. You want the flag changed, do something about it instead of sitting around pouting like a little bitch. And before you whine that I'm being mean, that was the nice thought going through my cracker head.

Thanks for just proving my point. ;D You DO NO UNDERSTAND what I'm saying and you just proved it in your post. But hey, it's my fault for thinking that someone who is, who knows how far from me, in the ATOT forums is going to change their mind on an issue or even begin to learn or understand a culture of people. You will never understand a black person and that is truly sad...BTW...I have a step-dad and he's white, so I have plenty of "white" family and I live in a predominately white neighborhood now ...so i've seen and been on both sides of the tracks...too bad you haven't, guess AGAIN, that make you ignorat, huh?

 

[Phoenix86]

Originally posted by: amoeba

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: amoeba

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: amoeba
2nd admendment says quote

" A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. "

says nothing about rebellion being a constitutionally protected act.

The whole concept of rebellion being constitutionally protected is a paradox as the constitution is a set of laws and rebellion means the breaking of those laws.

The second amendment allows a rebellion if necessary for the betterment of the people.

I just quoted the whole 2nd admendment in whole. Me thinks you have the declaration and the constitution mixed up.

Not at all. Weapons are an important part of a rebellion.

please, you don't have a foot to stand on.

Speech is an important part of rebellion too, so does the 1st admendment guarantee your right to rebellion?

Why create a second one if the first one sufficed?

Even if right to rebellion was allowed as you say, how do you judge such an abstract concept as "betterment of people" ?

The founders did not want a strong federal government with an army that could not be toppled. In order to ensure that they protected the rights of an armed militia. They knew the difference between army and militia, militias are citizens. Why would citizens need to be armed if there is alread an army protecting them? Ans. To protect them (citizens) FROM the army. I don't see how that isn't rebellion, you call it what you want.

 

[amoeba]

Originally posted by: mwtgg

Originally posted by: amoeba

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: amoeba

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: amoeba
2nd admendment says quote

" A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. "

says nothing about rebellion being a constitutionally protected act.

The whole concept of rebellion being constitutionally protected is a paradox as the constitution is a set of laws and rebellion means the breaking of those laws.

The second amendment allows a rebellion if necessary for the betterment of the people.

I just quoted the whole 2nd admendment in whole. Me thinks you have the declaration and the constitution mixed up.

Not at all. Weapons are an important part of a rebellion.

please, you don't have a foot to stand on.

Speech is an important part of rebellion too, so does the 1st admendment guarantee your right to rebellion?

Why create a second one if the first one sufficed?

Even if right to rebellion was allowed as you say, how do you judge such an abstract concept as "betterment of people" ?

Because for starters, the Second Amendment backs up all the other Amendments. If the government knew you had no (let me steal your phrase) foot to stand on, they would have no problem oppressing the people. But since you do have the right to free speech, assembly, etc and you have the right to back your words up, they might think twice about taking your rights away.

what are you trying to say here? you make no sense.

So I have a right to rebel?

I can shoot you if I wanted to because I feel its for the betterment of society?

I can shoot the president because he is oppressing me?

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: FinalFantasy

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: FinalFantasy

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: amoeba
eh its cool, been a long time since I studied this subject too.


For those that still believe that certain states should keep around the confederate flag, please retort to this post I made above :



The connection of the confederate flag to racism can be only viewed in the context which it is displayed.

That said, it is offensive enough to some people that prohibiting its use within government symbols would not be going overboard.

Purely for the fact that its a symbol of rebellion, it should not be used as a state flag, etc....

Imagine if certain states that were predominately british loyalists during the american revolution ended up creating state flags after the war which included exact replicas of the british flag.

This country was founded on rebellion. In fact, rebellion is the duty of every patriot against an oppressive government (and the south saw the north as oppressive, whether they were right or not).

People should be offended. Constantly.

We are not just talking about "people" as you stated above...we are talking about the government of a country, a way of life and the rights of all people who live under that government. If anything...it's my right to live a happy "normal" life without having to be constantly reminded that there are some white people out there who would, if given the chance, happily kick the $h)t out of me for just being black...that's what the Confederate flag stands for today and that's what those people attitudes are like...I see people like that on a weekly, if not more, basis...that's my reality and the world I live in, but maybe it's not the same for you. Maybe "people" wouldn't constantly be offended, if more "people" would step out of their 150 mile radius they call "the world", turned off the "local news" and thought about things from another persons point of view....and just because you "vacationed" or " in another part of the country does not mean you "know" that area and it's people.

I guess my point is, you don't live my life, I don't live yours, you're NOT black and you'll never be...so you'll never understand why "black people" get offended over the, according to people like you, "little stuff" and why we "overreact" in certain situations...you'll never know why there's gangs or why "black people" like "rap music"...lol

I'm done trying to convince the ignorant...it's pointless...they do not even have the foundation or for that fact the knowledge to even begin to see the world from another person's point of view or they just refuse to...and that folks is exactly why they'll never know or learn anything new they are ignorant ("an unlearned group incapable of understanding complex issue" which for the most part includes "lack of guile or worldly experience ") and will always be ignorant.

Goodnight! ;D

I see it perfectly from your point of view. You get offended at a piece of cloth. You think you are the only black person on the forums. You want the flag changed, do something about it instead of sitting around pouting like a little bitch. And before you whine that I'm being mean, that was the nice thought going through my cracker head.

Thanks for just proving my point. ;D You DO NO UNDERSTAND what I'm saying and you just proved it in your post. But hey, it's my fault for thinking that someone who is, who knows how far from me, in the ATOT forums is going to change their mind on an issues or even begin to learn or understand a culture of people. You will never understand a black person and that is truly sad...BTW...I have a step-dad and he's white, so I have plenty of "white" family and I live in a predominately white neighborhood now ...so i've seen and been on both sides of the tracks...too bad you haven't, huh?

What's wrong with my post again? YOU assumed I am white. YOU are getting offended over a piece of cloth. I didn't see you mention that YOU are doing anything to get the state flag changed.

 

[amoeba]

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

Originally posted by: amoeba

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: amoeba

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: amoeba
2nd admendment says quote

" A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. "

says nothing about rebellion being a constitutionally protected act.

The whole concept of rebellion being constitutionally protected is a paradox as the constitution is a set of laws and rebellion means the breaking of those laws.

The second amendment allows a rebellion if necessary for the betterment of the people.

I just quoted the whole 2nd admendment in whole. Me thinks you have the declaration and the constitution mixed up.

Not at all. Weapons are an important part of a rebellion.

please, you don't have a foot to stand on.

Speech is an important part of rebellion too, so does the 1st admendment guarantee your right to rebellion?

Why create a second one if the first one sufficed?

Even if right to rebellion was allowed as you say, how do you judge such an abstract concept as "betterment of people" ?

The founders did not want a strong federal government with an army that could not be toppled. In order to ensure that they protected the rights of an armed militia. They knew the difference between army and militia, militias are citizens. Why would citizens need to be armed if there is alread an army protecting them? Ans. To protect them (citizens) FROM the army. I don't see how that isn't rebellion, you call it what you want.

thats a big stretch from having a right to protect yourself with a private militia to directly rebelling against the state.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: amoeba

Originally posted by: mwtgg

Originally posted by: amoeba

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: amoeba

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: amoeba
2nd admendment says quote

" A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. "

says nothing about rebellion being a constitutionally protected act.

The whole concept of rebellion being constitutionally protected is a paradox as the constitution is a set of laws and rebellion means the breaking of those laws.

The second amendment allows a rebellion if necessary for the betterment of the people.

I just quoted the whole 2nd admendment in whole. Me thinks you have the declaration and the constitution mixed up.

Not at all. Weapons are an important part of a rebellion.

please, you don't have a foot to stand on.

Speech is an important part of rebellion too, so does the 1st admendment guarantee your right to rebellion?

Why create a second one if the first one sufficed?

Even if right to rebellion was allowed as you say, how do you judge such an abstract concept as "betterment of people" ?

Because for starters, the Second Amendment backs up all the other Amendments. If the government knew you had no (let me steal your phrase) foot to stand on, they would have no problem oppressing the people. But since you do have the right to free speech, assembly, etc and you have the right to back your words up, they might think twice about taking your rights away.

what are you trying to say here? you make no sense.

So I have a right to rebel?

I can shoot you if I wanted to because I feel its for the betterment of society?

I can shoot the president because he is oppressing me?

The presence of the second amendment ensures the presence of the others.

 

[mwtgg]

Originally posted by: amoeba

what are you trying to say here? you make no sense.

So I have a right to rebel?

I can shoot you if I wanted to because I feel its for the betterment of society?

I can shoot the president because he is oppressing me?

Where did I mention assassinating a leader or randomly killing someone.

No, secession is not supposed to be a whimsical thing to do. If you secede, it should be for a good reason and you must have a government to replace what you overthrow.

Edit: I see at least one person got what I was saying. Thank you n0cmonkey.

 

[amoeba]

i'll say this again.

If you find the quote

" A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. "

to mean that you have a right to rebel, then you might as well say white is black, black is white.

That is the most liberal interpretation of the constitution I've ever heard.

 

[FinalFantasy]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: FinalFantasy

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: FinalFantasy

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: amoeba
eh its cool, been a long time since I studied this subject too.


For those that still believe that certain states should keep around the confederate flag, please retort to this post I made above :



The connection of the confederate flag to racism can be only viewed in the context which it is displayed.

That said, it is offensive enough to some people that prohibiting its use within government symbols would not be going overboard.

Purely for the fact that its a symbol of rebellion, it should not be used as a state flag, etc....

Imagine if certain states that were predominately british loyalists during the american revolution ended up creating state flags after the war which included exact replicas of the british flag.

This country was founded on rebellion. In fact, rebellion is the duty of every patriot against an oppressive government (and the south saw the north as oppressive, whether they were right or not).

People should be offended. Constantly.

We are not just talking about "people" as you stated above...we are talking about the government of a country, a way of life and the rights of all people who live under that government. If anything...it's my right to live a happy "normal" life without having to be constantly reminded that there are some white people out there who would, if given the chance, happily kick the $h)t out of me for just being black...that's what the Confederate flag stands for today and that's what those people attitudes are like...I see people like that on a weekly, if not more, basis...that's my reality and the world I live in, but maybe it's not the same for you. Maybe "people" wouldn't constantly be offended, if more "people" would step out of their 150 mile radius they call "the world", turned off the "local news" and thought about things from another persons point of view....and just because you "vacationed" or " in another part of the country does not mean you "know" that area and it's people.

I guess my point is, you don't live my life, I don't live yours, you're NOT black and you'll never be...so you'll never understand why "black people" get offended over the, according to people like you, "little stuff" and why we "overreact" in certain situations...you'll never know why there's gangs or why "black people" like "rap music"...lol

I'm done trying to convince the ignorant...it's pointless...they do not even have the foundation or for that fact the knowledge to even begin to see the world from another person's point of view or they just refuse to...and that folks is exactly why they'll never know or learn anything new they are ignorant ("an unlearned group incapable of understanding complex issue" which for the most part includes "lack of guile or worldly experience ") and will always be ignorant.

Goodnight! ;D

I see it perfectly from your point of view. You get offended at a piece of cloth. You think you are the only black person on the forums. You want the flag changed, do something about it instead of sitting around pouting like a little bitch. And before you whine that I'm being mean, that was the nice thought going through my cracker head.

Thanks for just proving my point. ;D You DO NO UNDERSTAND what I'm saying and you just proved it in your post. But hey, it's my fault for thinking that someone who is, who knows how far from me, in the ATOT forums is going to change their mind on an issues or even begin to learn or understand a culture of people. You will never understand a black person and that is truly sad...BTW...I have a step-dad and he's white, so I have plenty of "white" family and I live in a predominately white neighborhood now ...so i've seen and been on both sides of the tracks...too bad you haven't, huh?

What's wrong with my post again? YOU assumed I am white. YOU are getting offended over a piece of cloth. I didn't see you mention that YOU are doing anything to get the state flag changed.

We have exhibit 101 here: (Please see last post quoted above)

Exhibit 101 is an example of a plainly ignorant person who makes no valuable point that pertains to the topic, but instead decideds to turn his "frustration" of having limited knowledge or background in the area, into anger and demeaning comments to other posters (see other previous post).

Really...goodnight guys, I really do hope YOUR LIFE is good, successful and prosperous...I do not wish anything bad on anyone in here, no matter your belief on the subject and I do not feel like getting into "personal" arguments with anyone here...cus I don't know you and your life and you for sure as hell don't know $hit about mine so...

G'Night gents.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: FinalFantasy

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: FinalFantasy

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: FinalFantasy

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: amoeba
eh its cool, been a long time since I studied this subject too.


For those that still believe that certain states should keep around the confederate flag, please retort to this post I made above :



The connection of the confederate flag to racism can be only viewed in the context which it is displayed.

That said, it is offensive enough to some people that prohibiting its use within government symbols would not be going overboard.

Purely for the fact that its a symbol of rebellion, it should not be used as a state flag, etc....

Imagine if certain states that were predominately british loyalists during the american revolution ended up creating state flags after the war which included exact replicas of the british flag.

This country was founded on rebellion. In fact, rebellion is the duty of every patriot against an oppressive government (and the south saw the north as oppressive, whether they were right or not).

People should be offended. Constantly.

We are not just talking about "people" as you stated above...we are talking about the government of a country, a way of life and the rights of all people who live under that government. If anything...it's my right to live a happy "normal" life without having to be constantly reminded that there are some white people out there who would, if given the chance, happily kick the $h)t out of me for just being black...that's what the Confederate flag stands for today and that's what those people attitudes are like...I see people like that on a weekly, if not more, basis...that's my reality and the world I live in, but maybe it's not the same for you. Maybe "people" wouldn't constantly be offended, if more "people" would step out of their 150 mile radius they call "the world", turned off the "local news" and thought about things from another persons point of view....and just because you "vacationed" or " in another part of the country does not mean you "know" that area and it's people.

I guess my point is, you don't live my life, I don't live yours, you're NOT black and you'll never be...so you'll never understand why "black people" get offended over the, according to people like you, "little stuff" and why we "overreact" in certain situations...you'll never know why there's gangs or why "black people" like "rap music"...lol

I'm done trying to convince the ignorant...it's pointless...they do not even have the foundation or for that fact the knowledge to even begin to see the world from another person's point of view or they just refuse to...and that folks is exactly why they'll never know or learn anything new they are ignorant ("an unlearned group incapable of understanding complex issue" which for the most part includes "lack of guile or worldly experience ") and will always be ignorant.

Goodnight! ;D

I see it perfectly from your point of view. You get offended at a piece of cloth. You think you are the only black person on the forums. You want the flag changed, do something about it instead of sitting around pouting like a little bitch. And before you whine that I'm being mean, that was the nice thought going through my cracker head.

Thanks for just proving my point. ;D You DO NO UNDERSTAND what I'm saying and you just proved it in your post. But hey, it's my fault for thinking that someone who is, who knows how far from me, in the ATOT forums is going to change their mind on an issues or even begin to learn or understand a culture of people. You will never understand a black person and that is truly sad...BTW...I have a step-dad and he's white, so I have plenty of "white" family and I live in a predominately white neighborhood now ...so i've seen and been on both sides of the tracks...too bad you haven't, huh?

What's wrong with my post again? YOU assumed I am white. YOU are getting offended over a piece of cloth. I didn't see you mention that YOU are doing anything to get the state flag changed.

We have exhibit 101 here: (Please see last post quoted above)

Exhibit 101 is an example of a plainly ignorant person who makes no valuable point that pertains to the topic, but instead decideds to turn his "frustration" of having limited knowledge or background in the area, into anger and demeaning comments to other posters (see other previous post).

Really...goodnight guys, I really do hope YOUR LIFE is good, successful and prosperous...I do not wish anything bad on anyone in here, no matter your belief on the subject and I do not feel like getting into "personal" arguments with anyone here...cus I don't know you and your life and you for sure as hell don't know $hit about mine so...

G'Night gents.

Despite the personal attacks, and refusal to discuss those attacks you made against me, have a great night.

 

[amoeba]

Originally posted by: mwtgg

Originally posted by: amoeba

what are you trying to say here? you make no sense.

So I have a right to rebel?

I can shoot you if I wanted to because I feel its for the betterment of society?

I can shoot the president because he is oppressing me?

Where did I mention assassinating a leader or randomly killing someone.

No, secession is not supposed to be a whimsical thing to do. If you secede, it should be for a good reason and you must have a government to replace what you overthrow.

Edit: I see at least one person got what I was saying. Thank you n0cmonkey.

fine, I won't get in to killing. so you have a right to secede? thats what the 2nd admendment says? so rebellion and secession are synonymous now?

hint: if any of the admendments really said anything about a right to seccession, you wouldn't have had a civil war in the first place.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: amoeba
i'll say this again.

If you find the quote

" A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. "

to mean that you have a right to rebel, then you might as well say white is black, black is white.

That is the most liberal interpretation of the constitution I've ever heard.

It ensures that a rebellion is possible.

 

[gistech1978]

no, but alot of the dumbasses who claim its their heritage and culture are.

 

[mwtgg]

Originally posted by: amoeba

Originally posted by: mwtgg

Originally posted by: amoeba

what are you trying to say here? you make no sense.

So I have a right to rebel?

I can shoot you if I wanted to because I feel its for the betterment of society?

I can shoot the president because he is oppressing me?

Where did I mention assassinating a leader or randomly killing someone.

No, secession is not supposed to be a whimsical thing to do. If you secede, it should be for a good reason and you must have a government to replace what you overthrow.

Edit: I see at least one person got what I was saying. Thank you n0cmonkey.

fine, I won't get in to killing. so you have a right to secede? thats what the 2nd admendment says? so rebellion and secession are synonymous now?

hint: if any of the admendments really said anything about a right to seccession, you wouldn't have had a civil war in the first place.

First of all, I never said the Second Amendment directly guaranteed for secession. I said that the Second Amenment backed up the other Amendments. If that's a liberal interpretation, then I'm Jesse Jackson.

Hint: Yes we would. Lincoln was a tyrant, you actually think that the measly Constitution would stop him? HAH!

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: gistech1978
no, but alot of the dumbasses who claim its their heritage and culture are.

Now that's a statement I can agree with. :beer:

But apparently, I'm one of those racists. So WTF do I know.

 

[amoeba]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: amoeba
i'll say this again.

If you find the quote

" A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. "

to mean that you have a right to rebel, then you might as well say white is black, black is white.

That is the most liberal interpretation of the constitution I've ever heard.

It ensures that a rebellion is possible.

nothing insures a rebellion is possible. a rebellion is always possible.

again.

rebellion by definition is a breaking of the law/government.

how do you have a law which insures that the breaking of the law is possible?

 

[gistech1978]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: gistech1978
no, but alot of the dumbasses who claim its their heritage and culture are.

Now that's a statement I can agree with. :beer:

But apparently, I'm one of those racists. So WTF do I know.

i didnt say all.

 

[amoeba]

Originally posted by: mwtgg

Originally posted by: amoeba

Originally posted by: mwtgg

Originally posted by: amoeba

what are you trying to say here? you make no sense.

So I have a right to rebel?

I can shoot you if I wanted to because I feel its for the betterment of society?

I can shoot the president because he is oppressing me?

Where did I mention assassinating a leader or randomly killing someone.

No, secession is not supposed to be a whimsical thing to do. If you secede, it should be for a good reason and you must have a government to replace what you overthrow.

Edit: I see at least one person got what I was saying. Thank you n0cmonkey.

fine, I won't get in to killing. so you have a right to secede? thats what the 2nd admendment says? so rebellion and secession are synonymous now?

hint: if any of the admendments really said anything about a right to seccession, you wouldn't have had a civil war in the first place.

First of all, I never said the Second Amendment directly guaranteed for secession. I said that the Second Amenment backed up the other Amendments. If that's a liberal interpretation, then I'm Jesse Jackson.

Hint: Yes we would. Lincoln was a tyrant, you actually think that the measly Constitution would stop him? HAH!

you realize when I say liberal I don't mean liberal as in the political left. Perhaps I should have worded it as loose constructionist.

you give the constitutiontoo little credit if you believe Lincoln, even if he is as tyranical in his heart of hearts as you say, could have overriden Constitutional checks and balances.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: gistech1978

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: gistech1978
no, but alot of the dumbasses who claim its their heritage and culture are.

Now that's a statement I can agree with. :beer:

But apparently, I'm one of those racists. So WTF do I know.

i didnt say all.

That's why I agreed with you.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: amoeba

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: amoeba
i'll say this again.

If you find the quote

" A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. "

to mean that you have a right to rebel, then you might as well say white is black, black is white.

That is the most liberal interpretation of the constitution I've ever heard.

It ensures that a rebellion is possible.

nothing insures a rebellion is possible. a rebellion is always possible.

again.

rebellion by definition is a breaking of the law/government.

how do you have a law which insures that the breaking of the law is possible?

Ok, so the term "possible" is misused. Without adequate weapons a rebellion stands no chance. It insures that a rebellion against an oppressive government has a chance.

Rebellion should be supported when the government goes against the people it works for. At that point the government is not doing what it should, and laws protecting it from the people are void.

Damn, I can't believe I misspelled insures. :|

 

[mwtgg]

Originally posted by: amoeba

Originally posted by: mwtgg

Originally posted by: amoeba

Originally posted by: mwtgg

Originally posted by: amoeba

what are you trying to say here? you make no sense.

So I have a right to rebel?

I can shoot you if I wanted to because I feel its for the betterment of society?

I can shoot the president because he is oppressing me?

Where did I mention assassinating a leader or randomly killing someone.

No, secession is not supposed to be a whimsical thing to do. If you secede, it should be for a good reason and you must have a government to replace what you overthrow.

Edit: I see at least one person got what I was saying. Thank you n0cmonkey.

fine, I won't get in to killing. so you have a right to secede? thats what the 2nd admendment says? so rebellion and secession are synonymous now?

hint: if any of the admendments really said anything about a right to seccession, you wouldn't have had a civil war in the first place.

First of all, I never said the Second Amendment directly guaranteed for secession. I said that the Second Amenment backed up the other Amendments. If that's a liberal interpretation, then I'm Jesse Jackson.

Hint: Yes we would. Lincoln was a tyrant, you actually think that the measly Constitution would stop him? HAH!

you realize when I say liberal I don't mean liberal as in the political left. Perhaps I should have worded it as loose constructionist.

you give the constitutiontoo little credit if you believe Lincoln, even if he is as tyranical in his heart of hearts as you say, could have overriden Constitutional checks and balances.

Hey, buddy, I know what you were getting at with the term 'liberal', you don't have to explain everything to me as if I was seven years old.

And yes, I think Lincoln could do it. If anyone disagreed with him, he'd throw them in jail -- Newspaper writers/editors, congressmen, it didn't matter to him.

 

[Mean MrMustard]

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: ELP

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: Cogman
If I remember Correctly, the Cival war was not about the abolishment of slavery. The abolishment of slavery was the Proverbial straw that broke the camels back.

Wow, someone with independent thought that was not brainwashed by liberal history books and you are not a Southerner....:Q

LOL! That's a piece of work!

I went 14 years at a christian school only to go to one of those evil public universities spewing their liberal propaganda to find out that the Civil War was actually about secession not slavery. But what do those pompous, liberal profs know?

:roll:

Goody goody. How bout a round of name that author...

"Any people whatsoever have the right to abolish the existing government and form a new one that suits them better. This is a valuable, a most sacred right." said in 1848

In case you need a hint, it came from one of the greatest hypocrites of that time period...

Lincoln, hypocrite.... Not necessarily.

I don't know what you're replying to...

It is FACT that the Civil War was about secession... not slavery. There were 'Northern' states that had slaves yet they were part of the Union.

Are we arguing just to argue or what?

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: ELP

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: ELP

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: Cogman
If I remember Correctly, the Cival war was not about the abolishment of slavery. The abolishment of slavery was the Proverbial straw that broke the camels back.

Wow, someone with independent thought that was not brainwashed by liberal history books and you are not a Southerner....:Q

LOL! That's a piece of work!

I went 14 years at a christian school only to go to one of those evil public universities spewing their liberal propaganda to find out that the Civil War was actually about secession not slavery. But what do those pompous, liberal profs know?

:roll:

Goody goody. How bout a round of name that author...

"Any people whatsoever have the right to abolish the existing government and form a new one that suits them better. This is a valuable, a most sacred right." said in 1848

In case you need a hint, it came from one of the greatest hypocrites of that time period...

Lincoln, hypocrite.... Not necessarily.

I don't know what you're replying to...

It is FACT that the Civil War was about secession... not slavery. There were 'Northern' states that had slaves yet they were part of the Union.

Are we arguing just to argue or what?

It is still taught in text books that the Civil War was started because of slavery and many people who read and posted in this thread thought that as well.

FYI, It is not the second amendment that guarantees states the right to secession, it is the 10th: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Since it wasn't on the books plus Lincoln was saying it was cool with him...

 

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by: ELP

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: ELP

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: Cogman
If I remember Correctly, the Cival war was not about the abolishment of slavery. The abolishment of slavery was the Proverbial straw that broke the camels back.

Wow, someone with independent thought that was not brainwashed by liberal history books and you are not a Southerner....:Q

LOL! That's a piece of work!

I went 14 years at a christian school only to go to one of those evil public universities spewing their liberal propaganda to find out that the Civil War was actually about secession not slavery. But what do those pompous, liberal profs know?

:roll:

Goody goody. How bout a round of name that author...

"Any people whatsoever have the right to abolish the existing government and form a new one that suits them better. This is a valuable, a most sacred right." said in 1848

In case you need a hint, it came from one of the greatest hypocrites of that time period...

Lincoln, hypocrite.... Not necessarily.

I don't know what you're replying to...

It is FACT that the Civil War was about secession... not slavery. There were 'Northern' states that had slaves yet they were part of the Union.

Are we arguing just to argue or what?

In 1858 at a debate with Stephen A. Douglas, Lincoln said the following, "In regard to the Fugitive Slave Law, I have never hesitated to say, and I do not now hesitate to say, that I think, under the Constitution of the United States, the people of the Southern States are entitled to a Congressional Fugitive Slave Law. Having said that, I have had nothing to say in regard to the existing Fugitve Slave Law than that I think it should have been framed so as to be free from some of the objections that pertain to it, without lessening its efficiency. And inasmuch as we are not now in an agitation in regard to an alteration or modification of that law, I would not be the man to introduce it as a new subject of agitation upon the general question of slavery. "

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: Excelsior

Originally posted by: ELP

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: ELP

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: Cogman
If I remember Correctly, the Cival war was not about the abolishment of slavery. The abolishment of slavery was the Proverbial straw that broke the camels back.

Wow, someone with independent thought that was not brainwashed by liberal history books and you are not a Southerner....:Q

LOL! That's a piece of work!

I went 14 years at a christian school only to go to one of those evil public universities spewing their liberal propaganda to find out that the Civil War was actually about secession not slavery. But what do those pompous, liberal profs know?

:roll:

Goody goody. How bout a round of name that author...

"Any people whatsoever have the right to abolish the existing government and form a new one that suits them better. This is a valuable, a most sacred right." said in 1848

In case you need a hint, it came from one of the greatest hypocrites of that time period...

Lincoln, hypocrite.... Not necessarily.

I don't know what you're replying to...

It is FACT that the Civil War was about secession... not slavery. There were 'Northern' states that had slaves yet they were part of the Union.

Are we arguing just to argue or what?

In 1858 at a debate with Stephen A. Douglas, Lincoln said the following, "In regard to the Fugitive Slave Law, I have never hesitated to say, and I do not now hesitate to say, that I think, under the Constitution of the United States, the people of the Southern States are entitled to a Congressional Fugitive Slave Law. Having said that, I have had nothing to say in regard to the existing Fugitve Slave Law than that I think it should have been framed so as to be free from some of the objections that pertain to it, without lessening its efficiency. And inasmuch as we are not now in an agitation in regard to an alteration or modification of that law, I would not be the man to introduce it as a new subject of agitation upon the general question of slavery. "

Hail to the Father of the Emancipation Proclamation...how he read it with a straight face I have no idea...

If it were to occur today, he would be accused of being a vote whore