NationStates Jolt Archive

Every ammendment in the constitution can only be touched if the majority of the people or states (2/3) see it as being counter-productive to a free society. The ammendment's on its face are anything but counter-productive though as long as they are intended to give a freedom (especially the freedoms that some will despise) to that free individual.

During our civil war there were actually more people that didnt want to go to war at all or wanted to go to war in order to keep slaves( or the states right to do so), than the americans that didnt believe in slavery (or wanted to retain the union at any cost). No matter the most noble reasoning is (wheather true or not),is that the minority in the union that fought for a freedom (every man is created equal) that a majority didnt agree with was 'just' and our history has proven this to be the case.

'Freedom' ...... What does it mean to you? It could mean the right to carry a handgun in your pocket anywhere you go, A freedom I enjoy legaly daily. (a concealed carry license could be argued that requiring a license to be issued a infringement on our second ammendment right) However I agree with requiring a person to show a compentency with a weapon before allowing them free reign to carry one where they please( just as having a license to drive). I dont think most americans see the restriction of obtaining a license a hinderance, but more of another tool to show a free society that I am responsible enough to be trusted with such a tool. A handgun/rifle/shotgun are all tools, that just as a car can be utilized as a tool, can also be misused by the beholder or as a helping agent to many.

Guns were the only tools left to ensure freedom to our slaves, since our diplomacy had failed. Im sorry but just letting our south get away with a "we will have slaves but you dont have to" would of been the easy road out. See some things are worth fighting for, and freedom for all is the top dog on my list(even if it really wasn't the truth, its what I would fight for) .

A book is a tool, because knowledge is the most powerful item another tool can utilize in order to put forth a beautiful or dangerous agenda. Do we restrict our free thinking minds and not allow certain area's to be thought of? No, we restrict the minds that have only a dangerous agenda, by putting restrictions for all to follow in order to show a compliance minded individual from a rebellious minded individual. Do you follow the rules or do you not, decides if your a criminal or a law abiding citizen. We are a land of laws, some there to protect us all from each other, and unfortiently some to protect ourselves from ourselves.

Careful, the Southeners will flame anyone that dares say that 90 years of conflict against the morality of slavery and 90 years of seperation based on this problem did not cause the Civil War, but rather, an issue brought up perhaps a decade before the War.

States rights, why did the South need to wage war and secede if they wanted states rights? They could've just as well acted like civilized men and tried to reason with the North. Hell, both sides were wrong in not being civilized about their disputes. Remember that one Senator (I think) who beat up a northern Senator?

Freedom (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=freedom), according to dictionary.com

And yes I do think the 2nd Amendment is freedom. It just gets a bad name from all those NRA gun nuts

Careful, the Southeners will flame anyone that dares say that 90 years of conflict against the morality of slavery and 90 years of seperation based on this problem did not cause the Civil War, but rather, an issue brought up perhaps a decade before the War.

States rights, why did the South need to wage war and secede if they wanted states rights? They could've just as well acted like civilized men and tried to reason with the North. Hell, both sides were wrong in not being civilized about their disputes. Remember that one Senator (I think) who beat up a northern Senator?

Actually, we Southerners who have bothered to pick up a history book realize slavery was certainly a component of the War Between the States, but certainly not the only issue. In other words, the North's claim that folks in, say, Ohio were willing to get shot at to free blacks in Alabama is ridiculous. There was a lot more to the War than that, such as questions of federalism, the conflict between an agrarian and industrializing society and etc.

I will admit the War Between the States, however, is an interesting case study -- evidently, individual states really don't have the right to band together and determine how to best govern themselves, contrary to what those wide-eyed fools who threw England out of the U.S. Colonies said.

Saline County, please don't get him going about the civil war again.

He will start crying about interpreted meanings in the Consititution and how it was abused by "Ceasar" Lincoln and how the evil Northern mongal hordes attacked and murdered the poor peaceful Southerners.

You at least admit slavery was a part. He will not. Even when shown the declarations of Seccession where it is mentioned in Georgias.....

Somebody please kack this thread! The argument has been done to death!

Pretty please! ;)

Saline County, please don't get him going about the civil war again.

He will start crying about interpreted meanings in the Consititution and how it was abused by "Ceasar" Lincoln and how the evil Northern mongal hordes attacked and murdered the poor peaceful Southerners.

You at least admit slavery was a part. He will not. Even when shown the declarations of Seccession where it is mentioned in Georgias.....

Somebody please kack this thread! The argument has been done to death!

Pretty please! ;)
Who the hell are you talking about? And why are you the second person to put words in my mouth, after Zepp? Caesar? Me not admitting that slavery wasnt the only issue? And there was never a declaration of Seccessions in the thread I was in.

I am a southerner, I was born in loudon county virginia, (a stones throw away from where it all began). I know that the civil war was not primarly based on freeing slaves, but also states rights. But the states right's that they wanted was to be free to have slaves. So in essence either way we look at it, it had to do with the placement of slaves, to be free to own one or to be free from being a slave.

Saline County, please don't get him going about the civil war again.

He will start crying about interpreted meanings in the Consititution and how it was abused by "Ceasar" Lincoln and how the evil Northern mongal hordes attacked and murdered the poor peaceful Southerners.

You at least admit slavery was a part. He will not. Even when shown the declarations of Seccession where it is mentioned in Georgias.....

Somebody please kack this thread! The argument has been done to death!

Pretty please! ;)

Oh, but I'm new here :)

However, whenever someone suggests the Union was primarily interested in eliminating slavery during the War Between the States, I have to chuckle. Particularly since that same allegedly race-conscious nation butchered the Native Americans when the West was settled just a few years after the war ended.

But, yes, slavery was a component, and a rather large one at that. At least as far as the South was concerned.

Who the hell are you talking about? And why are you the second person to put words in my mouth, after Zepp? Caesar? Me not admitting that slavery wasnt the only issue? And there was never a declaration of Seccessions in the thread I was in.

Ahm?

Colerica......Colodia? Looks the same to me! :p

Sorry......

Ahm?

Colerica......Colodia? Looks the same to me! :p

Sorry......
....I get that a lot...


so long as we're clear on that.