In response to:

Thoughts on “Assault Weapons” and “Magazine Limits” from an Actual Gun Expert

Lt. BUD/S USN Wrote: Feb 03, 2013 9:10 AM
I gotta tell you all how much I love the intelligent comments of people like "rwilco " about "the tyrant Lincoln." It shows me exactly who the left is going after because they're still fighting for slavery more than 140 years after the Civil War ended. I'll even bet you're one of the "real patriots" that sat at home on election night and let Obama win rather than vote for an "evil Mormon cultist," right??
RobertEubanks Wrote: Feb 03, 2013 9:49 AM
Funny, I feel the same way about Lincoln apologists who still believe the Civil War (sic) was fought over slavery.
Lt. BUD/S USN Wrote: Feb 03, 2013 10:02 AM
It was since the South started it rather than give up their slaves as evidenced by a Southern General, Nathan Bedford Forrest, starting the Klan to keep the freed slaves in their place, after the South LOST THE WAR. Of course it was also fought to preserve the country as ONE UNITED NATION, rather than two divided countries. And that was such a bad thing, wasn't it?
Lt. BUD/S USN Wrote: Feb 03, 2013 10:06 AM
And BTW, I MAKE NO APOLOGY FOR LINCOLN PRESERVING THE COUNTRY AS ONE NATION.
JRM57 Wrote: Feb 03, 2013 10:21 AM
Let's not forget Biden's famous words.... "We're gonna put y'all back in chains"..... That's why they want our guns. To put all of us, blacks and whites in chains..... Can't say you weren't warned.....
MarineGunner Wrote: Feb 03, 2013 1:12 PM
It is a matter of facing the truth instead of simply parroting myths and revisionist history. 1) It was not a "civil war." 2) It was not fought over slavery. 3) The U.S. attacked the CSA to start the war. 4) The KKK was originally created by CSA veterans to protect their families against Yankee carpet-bagger predators.

1) A civil war is a war within a single nation. The CSA was a separate, legally constituted nation with its own government, currency, and military.

2) Lincoln introduced slavery as a political issue during the war because he was losing the election.

3) Blockading a nations port is a legal act of war.

4) Yankee carpet-baggers were raping the South after the war. CSA vets formed the KKK to protect themselves.
Drik Wrote: Feb 03, 2013 1:23 PM
http://www.123helpme.com/view.asp?id=58780

chain of events about who started what
MarineGunner Wrote: Feb 03, 2013 1:27 PM
To expand on 3), the USA blockaded the CSA port of Charleston, SC. This is, legally, an act of war today and was an act of war then. Thus, the USA started the war, contrary to PC myth.

Regarding 2), slavery was a contentious social issue of conscience since before the Revolutionary War of 1776 but wealthy Northern slave traders, not Southerners, kept it politically tamped down. Lincoln became very unpopular because the war was not going well for the North. To turn the tide of public opinion, he introduced the slavery issue, hence his Emancipation Proclamation in 1863.

Regarding 4), the KKK today is a racist, white-supremacist organization but was not originally created for this purpose.
Drik Wrote: Feb 03, 2013 2:06 PM
Citadel cadets stationed on Morris Island were setting of New Year's fireworks on 1/9/61 about a half mile from Fort Sumpter. At the same time, the unarmed federal ship Star of the West was cruising past towards Fort Sumpter to resupply her. The Star of the West claimed that they were fired upon and that a richochet had struck the forechain of the ship, so they retreated, giving Lincoln the rationale that he sought the South had attacked the North and started a war. Prior to this, all of the interactions throughout all the South were garrisons and forts were taken and federal tropps were told to leave had been amicable and no shots fired per the order of outgong president James Buchanan.
Drik Wrote: Feb 03, 2013 2:08 PM
It was also claimed that Fort Moultrie fired on Fort Sumter at the same time, which was well withing the range that the guns at Moultrie could have reached, but that the cannon firing fell short. Which is mostly because it was fireworks.
Drik Wrote: Feb 03, 2013 2:12 PM
The South wanted no part of the unioin after the election of the anti-slavery Republican Lincoln. Slave state versus antislave state had a great deal to do with power in DC and which taxes and tarrifs were initiated and who then had the money.
doctorbone Wrote: Feb 03, 2013 4:05 PM
does that make any kind of sense???
MudontheTires Wrote: Feb 03, 2013 5:29 PM
"does that make any kind of sense???"

Yes, but obviously not to oyu.

AZYaateeh Wrote: Feb 03, 2013 7:10 PM
MarineGunner, that's not why the Emancipation Proclamation was issued. It was issued to try and get slaves to attack their masters—and more to the point, to make Southerners worry about their women and children being attacked by slaves.

"If we win, the slaves go free" is a very old military tactic, and its sole purpose is to terrorize civilians. Toyotomi Hideyoshi did the same thing when he invaded Korea in the 16th century.

As for the KKK, it was originally a vigilante group because the Republicans weren't enforcing the laws where former slaves were concerned, thinking Southerners deserved to suffer. However, their tactics even then were, in essence, "find and lynch the nearest black guy", they weren't concerned with proof.
nimh2 Wrote: Feb 04, 2013 6:43 AM
The Emancipation Proclamation DID NOT apply to slaves in the North--only to those slaves that resided in the "disputed territories".

I’m not a big gun owner and I’m not part of the gun culture. So why, then, do I frequently post about the issue of gun control?

Mostly because I believe in freedom and the Constitution.

But I also appreciate facts and analysis and I know that law-abiding citizens are safer and criminals face greater obstacles when good people have the right of self defense.

Last but not least, I think there’s a non-trivial possibility that the United States will suffer some sort of social chaos and/or breakdown of law and order because of the damage caused by reckless...