How do we go about real compromise?

[DoggyDaddy]

1861-1865

Oh.
No.
You shouldn’t have.
Really.

 

[BigRed]

Yeah, because nothing says walking away peacefully like attacking federally owned forts.

If you want to argue that the Confederate States should've had the right to secede, I'm perfectly willing to listen to that argument, but if you're acting like they were all just trying to walk away peacefully when the Union States shot them in the back, well, that's about as accurate as the left's narrative about George Floyd.

What the Hell is in the water down there in Bloomington?

First you want to compromise your natural rights with serpents and now this.

Here you go.

The War of Secession – Abbeville Institute

www.abbevilleinstitute.org

Next thing I know you're going to be claiming lincoln freed slaves.

 

[BigRed]

Not that you’re wrong. But this is gonna make a scene.

He is incorrect.

 

[jamil]

Toljah.

 

[BigRed]

Shhh! Maybe he won’t notice.

Yeah....right....

 

[AndreusMaximus]

First you want to compromise your natural rights with serpents and now this.

I never said I want to compromise my rights; I just said that if we could ever get to the point of a real compromise, it would better than what we're getting now.

The War of Secession – Abbeville Institute

www.abbevilleinstitute.org

Haven't had time to read the whole thing yet; I'll try to get to it tomorrow. In the first bit, though, it has already stated that the Confederate States were, as I pointed out, the first to attack the Union, not the other way around. Hardly the thing that those looking for a diplomatic and peaceful secession would do.

Next thing I know you're going to be claiming lincoln freed slaves.

Name someone who deserves the credit more than he does.

P.S.
Quickly skimmed the rest of the article after typing the above; unless I missed it, it looks like it does the typical thing I've noticed with those who argue that the Civil War had nothing to do with slavery, which is never cite a single written source from the time period, and conveniently forget to even mention the fact that most of the Confederate States explicitly cited the preservation of slavery (their "peculiar institution") as a primary reason for wanting to secede, and most of the top politicians of the Confederate States reiterated this in their speeches. Tomorrow I'll try to find time to give the article a more thorough read, and provide some citations for the above.

 

[BigRed]

Name someone who deserves the credit more than he does.

Show me one.

 

[jamil]

Isn't there a thread for this? If not, there should probably be one.

 

[BigRed]

Isn't there a thread for this? If not, there should probably be one.

Hey, what do ya know?!?!

Secession: an academic discussion

Point One: INGO has long had a rule against the discussion of the use of violence against the United States, or any of the governments thereof. This thread WILL NOT violate that rule. The topic of secession from the United States has come up at various times. Californians were reportedly...

www.indianagunowners.com

 

[jamil]

Hey, what do ya know?!?!

Secession: an academic discussion

Point One: INGO has long had a rule against the discussion of the use of violence against the United States, or any of the governments thereof. This thread WILL NOT violate that rule. The topic of secession from the United States has come up at various times. Californians were reportedly...

www.indianagunowners.com

Nah. That's just an academic discussion specifically about secession in general. It's not about the civil war or its causes.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

Isn't there a thread for this? If not, there should probably be one.

Hey, what do ya know?!?!

Secession: an academic discussion

Point One: INGO has long had a rule against the discussion of the use of violence against the United States, or any of the governments thereof. This thread WILL NOT violate that rule. The topic of secession from the United States has come up at various times. Californians were reportedly...

www.indianagunowners.com

Nah. That's just an academic discussion specifically about secession in general. It's not about the civil war or its causes.

New thread:

"Civil War" or "War of Northern Aggression"

Starting a new thread for this, which came up in a thread of a different subject. If they do though it'll start the Second Civil War. Second? There was never a first. Not a civil war. The seceeding states were not attempting to take control of the central state. They were walking away...

www.indianagunowners.com

 

[jwamplerusa]

Colion Noir has posted a video on the NYSRPA case. As usual an informative video, which also speaks to the anti-constitution (anti-American) forces reaction.

 

[KG1]

Colion Noir has posted a video on the NYSRPA case. As usual an informative video, which also speaks to the anti-constitution (anti-American) forces reaction.

Yeah I saw this the other day. Places like NY and Cali are proposing things that make it harder to carry. Stuff like declaring public transit sensitive areas prohibiting carrying a firearm. Colion points out that it would make it extremely difficult for a lot of residents that rely on public transit to get around in the city if they are carrying.

 

[KLB]

Yeah I saw this the other day. Places like NY and Cali are proposing things that make it harder to carry. Stuff like declaring public transit sensitive areas prohibiting carrying a firearm. Colion points out that it would make it extremely difficult for a lot of residents that rely on public transit to get around in the city if they are carrying.

Chicago/IL already has that in place

 

[Ingomike]

I never said I want to compromise my rights; I just said that if we could ever get to the point of a real compromise, it would better than what we're getting now.

Do you not see it? Most of us see it. Your proposal, if executed would end with compromising your rights…

 

[JAL]

First thing they'll try is declaring a myriad of "sensitive areas" such as churches, schools, bus stops, taxi stops, subways/trains, subway and train stations, bars, liquor stores, any restaurant serving alcohol, elevator and escalators, etc., all with huge radii around them such that there isn't a single square millimeter left in which you can carry a firearm. This is what Chicago did regarding ranges until the 7th Circuit told them to cease and desist it. I predict a year or two of more lawsuits going up to their District Courts and Circuit Court of Appeals. They're going to try anything and everything possible to make it impossible to carry. California will do the same. Colion Noir says it all.

John

 

[KG1]

First thing they'll try is declaring a myriad of "sensitive areas" such as churches, schools, bus stops, taxi stops, subways/trains, subway and train stations, bars, liquor stores, any restaurant serving alcohol, elevator and escalators, etc., all with huge radii around them such that there isn't a single square millimeter left in which you can carry a firearm. This is what Chicago did regarding ranges until the 7th Circuit told them to cease and desist it. I predict a year or two of more lawsuits going up to their District Courts and Circuit Court of Appeals. They're going to try anything and everything possible to make it impossible to carry. California will do the same. Colion Noir says it all.

John

I'm sure they'll try but, in the decision, Justice Thomas addresses that and states while they are historically allowed to restrict some "sensitive areas" such as schools and government buildings and polling places, they can't just start declaring all places of public gathering to be a "sensitive area" because it would eviscerate the general right to publicly carry arms for self-defense.

It will be interesting to see how that will play out.

 

[patience0830]

N

Second?
There was never a first.

NOthing "civil" about it.

 

[BigRed]

N

NOthing "civil" about it.

True and correct.

 

[foszoe]

How does one compromise a principle?