Question For Guns Owners About Purchases

[Irish]

You got an argument?

[Irish]

Technically, there isn't a constitutional mechanism to stop it, aside from Congressional power to declare war (doesn't legally need to be justifiable). As with the south, however, it's bound to be attempted by those states which are not populated by the best and brightest that this country has to offer, which will similarly lead to their downfall.

You could argue secession is unconstitutional since there is no mechanism for that.

[Irish]

California has been bringing it up and I say let them; but they're going to have a hard time travelling through all that Federal land, to get from city to city, and I don't think the US sells water to foreign lands, so there's that problem for them also.

Plus this doesn't even address to the situation where there are those in California who want to have the State divided into 3 States.

The middle and northern part of California are tired of SoCal dictating to the rest of the state.

Agreed. If the rest of the states vote to allow it, then it would be a peaceful secession.

[Irish]

But doesn't that show that the Citizens of Illinois don't agree with the gun control laws, that were placed into law, in their state.

Yes of course. And to be frank they are pretty stupid and useless. Especially since many people in bad areas like south Chicago want firearms to protect themselves.

[Minister of Truth]

Were papers of secession constitutional prior to the civil war? How about post civil war?

It depended on who you asked. When there were talks of secession in 1850, numerous people weighed-in on it, and many believed it would de facto lead to civil war and that it was unconstitutional. Post civil war it is considered unconstitutional, almost universally, because it was the position of the US government at the time that secession was illegal. I personally disagree with this, but find myself in a small minority of opinion on this matter. Most people who agree with me are also anti-American/pro-CSA types who lament the American victory in the war, making me an even greater anomaly for being a pro-American/anti-CSA type that happens to believe that secession is technically legal.

[J Craft]

It depended on who you asked. When there were talks of secession in 1850, numerous people weighed-in on it, and many believed it would de facto lead to civil war and that it was unconstitutional. Post civil war it is considered unconstitutional, almost universally, because it was the position of the US government at the time that secession was illegal. I personally disagree with this, but find myself in a small minority of opinion on this matter. Most people who agree with me are also anti-American/pro-CSA types who lament the American victory in the war, making me an even greater anomaly for being a pro-American/anti-CSA type that happens to believe that secession is technically legal.

Constitutionally speaking I believe the papers of secession to have been in order- However, I believe the actions of Southern states at Ft Sumter to have been treasonous. Post civil war, I am anti secession, because I believe the war settled once for all the unity of the Republic. The unwillingness of Southern states to resolve their complaints legislatively pre Civil War, certainly supports the position that Ft. Sumter was a treasoness agression rightly opposed by the Union.

That said, men and women, of good faith, felt they were in the right from a States Rights standing. I cannot, and will not, judge them.

[Minister of Truth]

Constitutionally speaking I believe the papers of secession to have been in order- However, I believe the actions of Southern states at Ft Sumter to have been treasonous. Post civil war, I am anti secession, because I believe the war settled once for all the unity of the Republic. The unwillingness of Southern states to resolve their complaints legislatively pre Civil War, certainly supports the position that Ft. Sumter was a treasoness agression rightly opposed by the Union.

That said, men and women, of good faith, felt they were in the right from a States Rights standing. I cannot, and will not, judge them.

Well, the attack was an act of war, rather than treason, being that it came from a foreign power. Actually, the men and women who supported the CSA did not argue from a states rights position, which is an argument that came later on by apologists (technically, there is no such thing, as governmental entities cannot have rights, and the correct term found in the 10th Amendment is powers of government). The secession documents only mention slavery and the purity of the white race, with a couple of states also referencing some of the recent tariffs.

The real stupidity of the south was in its refusal to negotiate with the north over slavery. At the moment of secession, there was a proposed constitutional amendment working its way through Congress that would have specifically protected slavery in the southern states. The south, however, had two major issues with the discussion: it saw abolition in the developing western territories/states as a long-term threat to slavery (both in terms of nullifying southern votes, and in terms of weakening the economic strength of slavery by isolating it when it needed to expand to remain profitable), and it saw the mere discussion of abolition as inherently offensive unto itself. These were not a reasonable people, and the subsequent actions of the southern states reflect a people who were fully deficient in adhering to basic American and Western values.

[CFM]

1) They were traitors while in the process of leaving. Traitors who, I might add, hated America. To honor them as part of your heritage is to hate America - all day, everyday.

2) You cannot expel soldiers from their own sovereign soil, which is what Fort Sumter was for American troops. If a foreign nation, such as Canada, had a seaport on the coast of a US state (or anywhere else, for that matter), it would be an unlawful act of war to attack it.

1) Leaving and renouncing citizenship doesn't make someone a traitor. It happens regularly in the U.S. today. Are you saying all those people are traitors?

2) When you acknowledged the Confederacy as a nation, Ft. Sumter was no longer sovereign soil of the U.S.

[katzgar]

Remington has been garbage for a decade or two now, so their bankruptcy is welcome and unsurprising. Maybe if you knew anything at all you'd understand that.

the problem you have is you are an uneducated deplorable and it shows. Remingtons gun sales were strong until trump was elected by putin. Educated people know this.

[CFM]

the problem you have is you are an uneducated deplorable and it shows. Remingtons gun sales were strong until trump was elected by putin. Educated people know this.

Educated people know Trump was by the 304 electors that voted for him that were determined by the voters in each State and Washington, DC.

If, as you claim, Putin elected Trump, in which jurisdiction was Putin registered? Where did he vote? If he, as a non-citizen, actually voted, and that is the ONLY thing that elects someone to office, doesn't that show a need for voter ID?

[Minister of Truth]

1) Leaving and renouncing citizenship doesn't make someone a traitor. It happens regularly in the U.S. today. Are you saying all those people are traitors?

2) When you acknowledged the Confederacy as a nation, Ft. Sumter was no longer sovereign soil of the U.S.

It wasn't part of SC, so the CSA couldn't seize it.

[CFM]

It wasn't part of SC, so the CSA couldn't seize it.

So Ft. Sumter isn't in SC? Strange. I would swear I was in SC last time I was at Ft. Sumter.

[Minister of Truth]

So Ft. Sumter isn't in SC? Strange. I would swear I was in SC last time I was at Ft. Sumter.

Again, it wasn't part of SC. In fact, it was specifically signed over to the US government in the 1830s.

[CFM]

Again, it wasn't part of SC. In fact, it was specifically signed over to the US government in the 1830s.

Again, Ft. Sumter isn't in SC? Maybe you should go there and see for yourself. In fact, those doing the tour indicted it was in SC.

[Minister of Truth]

Again, Ft. Sumter isn't in SC? Maybe you should go there and see for yourself. In fact, those doing the tour indicted it was in SC.

No, it was not a part of SC, thanks in no small part to contract law. Maine is not "in" present day Massachusetts, but was nonetheless part of the commonwealth until 1820. How the fuck was that ever possible? The Hawaiian Islands aren't super-glued together, yet somehow manage to constitute a single state, which is no doubt a mindboggling concept.