Shall-Issue laws reduce crime (i.e. concealed carry laws)

I'm just pointing out the realistic reasons why a peaceful secession is a ridiculous notion for the United States of America -- those reasons are economic (and yes, I'm aware that flag printing was the tiny reason of the ones I gave), political, practical, and nationalistic.

In other words, what would the Union be willing to spend to keep a group of people posessing a large amount of our defense ability, a disproportionately high amount of our tax revenue, and smack down this notion that we are a nation of States as opposed to a Nation of States?

My estimation is that we would spend a lot -- a lot of money and blood, if it came to it. The British did it to us (and lost) and the North did it to the South (and won). I don't see why any other conclusion than an American secession being ludicrous could ever be considered anything but wildly idealistic.

Simply because I wouldn't deploy troops over something doesn't mean I'm for it. There's lots of bad ideas in this country and abroad, but I'm not going fight against them unless there's a damn good reason. (And part of my seemingly emphatic support comes from the kneejerk "burn 'em all!" which is all pride and no sense. Not much economic value in rubble and corpses.)

Secession is a no-win scenario in a lot of aspects, but despite history I can't see why it couldn't occur peacefully. Wars were fought because nation's didn't want to let go, not because they had to be. Many people would be inconvenienced either way. The stuff you list -- corporate interests dealing with another nation, buying new flags, etc. is pretty minor (states already have different laws, we changed flags frequently through our history) and would be, I think, worthwhile to avoid the loss of life and the general headache of a civil war. Occupation is generally more costly than anyone anticipates -- for a serious secession, it's a generation of work. Look at the pain in the ass caused by The Troubles, and that didn't even have the benefit of a majority vote behind it.

So yea, depending on the circumstances, I'd probably have a hard time arguing for a fight if Texas voted to leave. "It's cheaper in the long run" doesn't strike me either true or a good reason.

EDIT: Saw your last post. Fighting for... a tax base? Are we a plunder economy now? Nations often kill for wealth, and it's never looked upon kindly. Rightly so, I think.

Oh, I think we'd fight a civil war. I agree a peaceful secession is "ridiculous" in the sense Americans like to fight and are willing to destroy things rather than give them up, but fighting doesn't strike me as a good way to achieve any reasonable goals.

Nathaniel wrote:
Teneman wrote:

Luckily, neither of us get to make the rules regarding what the other can and can't do.

That last line is pure fiction. Sure, I don't make the rules but I live in a representative democracy which DOES make the rules.

The fact remains: although I grudgingly allow other people I don't trust to drive cars (under carefully prescribed conditions, with training, and constant policing) I don't trust them to carry firearms. Firearms are much more dangerous and serve no purpose other than killing.

I'm going to respond to this in short form, not to sidetrack the sidetrack secession conversation which at this point is frankly more interesting. But two things:

1) YOU don't make the rules despite living in a representative democracy, nor do YOU allow other people you don't trust to do anything. You get a vote, and only one I might add, by which you can hope to influence your representatives to do those things YOU would like done. Even if you, and a majority of the other citizens in said representative democracy should all agree, you are still unable to take certain rights away from people in the minority - whether you trust them or not.

2) You continue to say that firearms serve no purpose other than killing or maiming. Repeating that does not make it true. I can list half a dozen other purposes, as can just about any other gun owner here, but I've got a sneaking suspicion that would be a waste of both our time.

I don't see why any other conclusion than an American secession being ludicrous could ever be considered anything but wildly idealistic.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to "be perpetual." And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained "to form a more perfect Union." It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?[

Teneman wrote:

you are still unable to take certain rights away from people in the minority - whether you trust them or not.

This is the whole issue: what rights are inalieable, and which are mere privileges. Since I wasn't born in America, I don't regard the Constitution to be holy writ - I think the 2nd amendment, as it is often interpreted, is simply wrong. Moreover, we already limit the rights of individuals to bear arms - we disallow tactical nuclear weapons, surface-to-air missiles, and all manner of ordinance. I'm willing to stretch to the point where you're allowed to have a muzzle-loaded powder musket, but everything else is up for debate.

You continue to say that firearms serve no purpose other than killing or maiming. Repeating that does not make it true. I can list half a dozen other purposes, as can just about any other gun owner here, but I've got a sneaking suspicion that would be a waste of both our time.

I admit, I've not heard good ones... here are my guesses:

- Home defense or personal defense: If you're not willing to shoot it, you might as well have a replica. If you're willing to shoot it, then the purpose if for killing and maiming. (Perhaps killing and maiming a deserving person, but killing and maiming nonetheless.)

- Hunting: This is still killing and maiming. Of animals, but killing and maiming nonetheless. My statement stands. I'm not sure why we need to allow people to hunt, but if we do, there's no reason for a handgun (which is the core of the debate, not single-action hunting rifles).

- Target shooting: I'll stipulate to firearms that never leave licensed and heavily secured target ranges, although I don't see why anyone would rather shoot a gun than, say, throw a 2nd century BC pilum. And there aren't that many pilum clubs.

- Military or police service: Fine, leave it locked up at the station/base when you're not on duty.

What else? Driving nails? Paperweight? Emergency drill press? Watermelon vaporization? Inquiring minds want to know.

I admit to hearing one legitmate use for a high-powered handgun. I knew a guy who used to work in the Yukon, where grizzly bears were common, and the terrain and wind were such that it was possible to inadvertantly surprise a very dangerous and agressive animal with no warning at very close quarters. In this one case, a .44 gave you a chance to kill the bear before it killed you. But this is a pretty bizarre circumstance.

Malor wrote:
I don't see why any other conclusion than an American secession being ludicrous could ever be considered anything but wildly idealistic.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

I think the point is (and your quote is not lost on me) that an actual overthrow of the US government is more likely to succeed than a State, or few, secedeing from the Union. If Texas was to try and leave because the Government is corrupt, we would fight, and fight hard (it's the American way). If the US as a whole (or majority) decides the Gov is corrupt, we should revolt.

Also, one thing you bring up against a revolt (the military) would likely split on the issue. I could easily see units and Generals picking sides. The side they think will win, but definately sides. I guess which ever way the majority of the Air Force goes = Winner.

However, I also think our society has moved past the mindset of using violence to change government. You could also construe that as me calling the majority fat, dumb, lazy, and content - take it as you will.

Nathaniel wrote:
Teneman wrote:

you are still unable to take certain rights away from people in the minority - whether you trust them or not.

This is the whole issue: what rights are inalieable, and which are mere privileges. Since I wasn't born in America, I don't regard the Constitution to be holy writ - I think the 2nd amendment, as it is often interpreted, is simply wrong. Moreover, we already limit the rights of individuals to bear arms - we disallow tactical nuclear weapons, surface-to-air missiles, and all manner of ordinance. I'm willing to stretch to the point where you're allowed to have a muzzle-loaded powder musket, but everything else is up for debate.

You continue to say that firearms serve no purpose other than killing or maiming. Repeating that does not make it true. I can list half a dozen other purposes, as can just about any other gun owner here, but I've got a sneaking suspicion that would be a waste of both our time.

I admit, I've not heard good ones... here are my guesses:

- Home defense or personal defense: If you're not willing to shoot it, you might as well have a replica. If you're willing to shoot it, then the purpose if for killing and maiming. (Perhaps killing and maiming a deserving person, but killing and maiming nonetheless.)

- Hunting: This is still killing and maiming. Of animals, but killing and maiming nonetheless. My statement stands. I'm not sure why we need to allow people to hunt, but if we do, there's no reason for a handgun (which is the core of the debate, not single-action hunting rifles).

- Target shooting: I'll stipulate to firearms that never leave licensed and heavily secured target ranges, although I don't see why anyone would rather shoot a gun than, say, throw a 2nd century BC pilum. And there aren't that many pilum clubs.

- Military or police service: Fine, leave it locked up at the station/base when you're not on duty.

What else? Driving nails? Paperweight? Emergency drill press? Watermelon vaporization? Inquiring minds want to know.

I admit to hearing one legitmate use for a high-powered handgun. I knew a guy who used to work in the Yukon, where grizzly bears were common, and the terrain and wind were such that it was possible to inadvertantly surprise a very dangerous and agressive animal with no warning at very close quarters. In this one case, a .44 gave you a chance to kill the bear before it killed you. But this is a pretty bizarre circumstance.

So, you are saying that any weapon that can harm a living being of any type should be made illegal?

gizmo wrote:

So, you are saying that any weapon that can harm a living being of any type should be made illegal?

his point was specific to guns -- and, even more specific, high powered hand held weaponry made in the time period subsequent to muzzel loaded powder muskets. I don't think Nathanial was intending any inferred extrapolation to other items like slingshots or water balloons in his post.

Nathaniel wrote:
Teneman wrote:

you are still unable to take certain rights away from people in the minority - whether you trust them or not.

This is the whole issue: what rights are inalieable, and which are mere privileges. Since I wasn't born in America, I don't regard the Constitution to be holy writ - I think the 2nd amendment, as it is often interpreted, is simply wrong.

And I think the 16th amendment is wrong. We're both welcome to our opinions. Regardless of our personal opinions these two amendments, along with the rest of the Constitution are the highest law of the land and are not easily changeable based on something as fickle as popular opinion.

Nathaniel wrote:

I admit, I've not heard good ones... here are my guesses:
- I'm not sure why we need to allow people to hunt
- I don't see why anyone would rather shoot a gun than

And this is why I said this particular portion of the discussion would be a waste of both our time. Your argument basically boils down to not being able to see any use that you think is good enough. That's not an argument that can be won. Whether you (or I) personally understand someone else's desire to do something is not exactly the test I'd like to see for taking away that person's rights.

Nathaniel wrote:

- Hunting: This is still killing and maiming. Of animals, but killing and maiming nonetheless.

Not if you're hunting the most dangerous game of all.

No mere Supreme Court decision trumps the ideals of the original document. The Framers didn't, as far as I can see, put 'permanent' anywhere in that document. In fact, they pretty clearly put in that one of the most fundamental rights of all is to organize one's own government to one's liking.

This indissoluble nonsense was added wholesale by people who had a vested interest in perpetuating their own power and prestige to the detriment of others.

Malor wrote:

No mere Supreme Court decision trumps the ideals of the original document. The Framers didn't, as far as I can see, put 'permanent' anywhere in that document. In fact, they pretty clearly put in that one of the most fundamental rights of all is to organize one's own government to one's liking.

This indissoluble nonsense was added wholesale by people who had a vested interest in perpetuating their own power and prestige to the detriment of others.

We've already had an indepth discussion on which rights are natural and which are procedural. Many argue natural rights, as put forth in the Constitution, are certainly 'permanent'. Besides, changing any amendment, let alone any of the first 10, is very, very hard.

Malor wrote:

It could be perfectly peaceful and straightforward. There's no reason for anyone to shoot anyone. Just follow existing property and tax laws, and pretty much anything can be worked out.

Sorry, Malor. It would be horribly bloody and, ultimately, a futile exercise by Texas.

Uncle Sam has already proven that no State gets to leave the Federal fold without a fight. And, to date, no State has avoided that forceful reintegration.

It wouldn't be a peaceful transfer of power and property rights as you say. The bulk of America would (rightfully) view Texas as selfish, petulant traitors and demand that American soil be reclaimed from those criminals. That feeling of betrayal would be tapped by the the Federal government, who couldn't allow the precedent to be set that any State could leave the nation if they wanted. Texas would be made an example.

And as soon as the first American troops would be killed by a Texan, the rest of Texas' citizens would cease being former Americans, brothers, cousins, etc. in the minds of most Americans. They would become enemies and we Americans don't give a f*ck what happens to our enemies.

And, yes, I really have thought my statement through. Ancient armies understood how to pacify a conquered land and ensure it didn't slip into rebellion in the future. The closest we got in modern times is Germany and Japan where entire cities were destroyed and several generations of men absolutely ravaged. There was no confusion in the population that they lost and that the beliefs, ideals, and political structures that started and supported the war would not be tolerated.

I would want the same to be visited upon Texas or any rebelling State. The level of destruction would need to be significant enough that no moron could claim that it could "rise again". That was the mistake of the Civil War. Sherman's March should have been repeated everywhere in the South so it was perfectly clear to the survivors that the Southern way of life meant death and destruction. That fact we have the Confederate Flag and cults of Gen. Lee enthusiasts 150 years after the fact shows we didn't do enough during that war. Southerners should feel burning shame about the Civil War, not quite pride.

Shoal07 wrote:
Malor wrote:

No mere Supreme Court decision trumps the ideals of the original document. The Framers didn't, as far as I can see, put 'permanent' anywhere in that document. In fact, they pretty clearly put in that one of the most fundamental rights of all is to organize one's own government to one's liking.

This indissoluble nonsense was added wholesale by people who had a vested interest in perpetuating their own power and prestige to the detriment of others.

We've already had an indepth discussion on which rights are natural and which are procedural. Many argue natural rights, as put forth in the Constitution, are certainly 'permanent'. Besides, changing any amendment, let alone any of the first 10, is very, very hard.

Malor was responding to me quoting Texas v White regarding secession.

Why? Why would you want that OG? Union at all costs helps no one. Reality is not a giant game of Risk.

That's a crazy, pointlessly bloodthirsty idea that belongs on the shelf next to "Glass the Middle East".

Seth wrote:
Shoal07 wrote:
Malor wrote:

No mere Supreme Court decision trumps the ideals of the original document. The Framers didn't, as far as I can see, put 'permanent' anywhere in that document. In fact, they pretty clearly put in that one of the most fundamental rights of all is to organize one's own government to one's liking.

This indissoluble nonsense was added wholesale by people who had a vested interest in perpetuating their own power and prestige to the detriment of others.

We've already had an indepth discussion on which rights are natural and which are procedural. Many argue natural rights, as put forth in the Constitution, are certainly 'permanent'. Besides, changing any amendment, let alone any of the first 10, is very, very hard.

Malor was responding to me quoting Texas v White regarding secession. :)

I see that now. My bad.

I'm still convinced the economic political loss of a state supercedes the efforts needed to reclaim a state. This includes razing the state to the ground.

Assuming, of course, biological and nuclear weapons are off the table.

Seth wrote:

I'm still convinced the economic political loss of a state supercedes the efforts needed to reclaim a state. This includes razing the state to the ground.

Assuming, of course, biological and nuclear weapons are off the table.

It's highly unlikely we'd want to pollute something we want back that badly. NBC weapons are always a last resort, per doctrine and precedent, so I don't see why we'd just Nuke Texas. And we'd nuke before we sludge or bio. Anyway, I feel if the war was really coming down to us thinking of Nuking we'd probably stop fighting and let them go - unless they were knocking at the border of OK or something.

Shoal07 wrote:
Seth wrote:

I'm still convinced the economic political loss of a state supercedes the efforts needed to reclaim a state. This includes razing the state to the ground.

Assuming, of course, biological and nuclear weapons are off the table.

It's highly unlikely we'd want to pollute something we want back that badly. NBC weapons are always a last resort, per doctrine and precedent, so I don't see why we'd just Nuke Texas. And we'd nuke before we sludge or bio. Anyway, I feel if the war was really coming down to us thinking of Nuking we'd probably stop fighting and let them go - unless they were knocking at the border of OK or something.

Yeah I was unclear in my post. You said what I intended to say.

Staats wrote:

Why? Why would you want that OG? Union at all costs helps no one. Reality is not a giant game of Risk.

That's a crazy, pointlessly bloodthirsty idea that belongs on the shelf next to "Glass the Middle East".

Union at all costs helps no one? Really? Try convincing a black person that they'd be better off if the North had let the Confederacy continue to exist.

You let Texas go over gun rights or whatever and the next thing you know Kansas is pulling out because they want to teach Creationism.

Oh yes, the people of Kansas would be better off dead or squatting in rubble than learning Creationism.

Staats wrote:

Oh yes, the people of Kansas would be better off dead or squatting in rubble than learning Creationism.

So, ultimately, you're totally fine with the dissolution of the Union and the establishment of a loose alliance of, say, 6 nation states? Turn America into a form of the EU?

The reality is there's so much federal funding to be lost, it's economically unviable for a vast majority of States to even consider. With rare exception, most State governments are broke, bankrupt, or poor.

Staats wrote:

Oh yes, the people of Kansas would be better off dead or squatting in rubble than learning Creationism.

You have the wrong focus. It's not about the people of Kansas. It's about the rest of America. And the country would be stronger not having a group so invested in the idea of Creationism that they felt they needed to secede. Separation of church and state trumps a bunch of local religious yahoos.

At the end of the day its a clash of ideas and one has to win out. For the good of the core beliefs of America, you'd have to burn out the pocket of people who insisted differently.

You're talking about killing people that believe differently than you. "Everyone else is better if these people aren't around." Or something. In any case it involves killing over ideas that can peacefully co-exist. Screw that.

Seth wrote:

So, ultimately, you're totally fine with the dissolution of the Union and the establishment of a loose alliance of, say, 6 nation states? Turn America into a form of the EU?

With majority votes, etc., yea. I have a hard time imaging such a political environment, but certainly the idea of maintaining the U.S. as-is falls apart in a 6 man fight.

Shoal07 wrote:

The reality is there's so much federal funding to be lost, it's economically unviable for a vast majority of States to even consider. With rare exception, most State governments are broke, bankrupt, or poor.

That's true, but we're running with the example of Texas. texas and California are some of the "most well prepared" states to secede in a singular act (as opposed to doing so with a group of other states) -- they both have access to ocean ports, they both have enormous and relatively self functioning economies on their own (including food production), and they both border another foreign country besides the USA. And they both provide more tax revenue to the Union than they receive in federal money.

It's not like Mississippi, which desperately needs tax dollars from the people of California and Texas just to exist, would ever attempt to secede -- but they'd damn sure be ready to force those guys back into the Union if it came to that.

Staats wrote:

You're talking about killing people that believe differently than you. "Everyone else is better if these people aren't around." Or something. In any case it involves killing over ideas that can peacefully co-exist. Screw that.

Technically a Civil war could be seen as an act of self defense on the part of the Union. Rebel thieves are stealing land and (assumedly) flaunting the 16th amendment. Not to mention Texas v White, which I mentioned earlier.

Seth wrote:

So, ultimately, you're totally fine with the dissolution of the Union and the establishment of a loose alliance of, say, 6 nation states? Turn America into a form of the EU?

With majority votes, etc., yea. I have a hard time imaging such a political environment, but certainly the idea of maintaining the U.S. as-is falls apart in a 6 man fight.

I hate to sound like a Vietnam record, but this would have a very real Domino effect. A Free Texas could re institute slavery and forcibly eject non whites to surrounding Union lands -- or kidnap people from Union lands and use them as slaves since they would technically have zero protection under Texas law. It might make sense for weaker border states to get themselves annexed, especially if Texas takes a large share of the Union's invested defense structure and science base.

Staats wrote:

You're talking about killing people that believe differently than you. "Everyone else is better if these people aren't around." Or something. In any case it involves killing over ideas that can peacefully co-exist. Screw that.

This idea shouldn't be a shocker to you. It's pretty much why all wars have been fought. Human history is full of one group of people getting exterminated by another group of people either because they believe something different or they are simply in the way. When the cards are on the table, we're still a very Highlander/Thunderdome species.

What do you think the Civil War was all about? The South's view of what the nation should be clashed with the North's. It was a war between two different beliefs. The North's view of one Union did not allow for the South's view of independence.