Metrics for gun violence statistics

[The Heretic]

Growing/selling drugs does not infringe on my rights - so whether someone thinks it is immoral, doesn't make it bad and therefore something that should be banned.

Making me a slave, does infringe on my rights, so it is immoral and should be illegal.

 

[American123]

The South had a stunted economy that only favored a tiny number of plantation owners, rather than the majority of free people who mostly lived in poverty because of the lack of infrastructure and economic growth. That's one of the reasons the South lost the war - no manufacturing base, no railroads. The people at the top did that to all the people because it protected their incomes. So it was neither morally nor economically beneficial to keep slavery.


It was also understood by most of the Southern members of the Continental Congress and Constitutional Convention that slavery was a transition economy and was going to go away. A 'necessary evil'. It was really only the reps from Georgia and South Carolina that didn't embrace some form of abolitionism at that time.


The British Empire became the most populace country on earth, and had already evolved a representative government before the US separated. Remember, the Colonies didn't object to having a king, but not being fully represented in Parliament. We nearly made Washington king, so I don't follow your argument about teaching the world about democracy. We learned it from being British.


Bringing up slavery in other places and the lack of sharing that to school children is only a distractor. It is like talking about "states' rights" in a vacuum as the cause of the Civil War. Slavery was bad for white people in the US. It prevented the South from maturing socially and economically. It only served a tiny number of elites who helped enforce it through a thoroughly "unAmerican" class system, and it damaged the economics of the country as a whole. We can skip over the 750,000 dead caused by trying to remove it.

Saying we learned how to do government (monarchy) from the British completely ignores the republic that was created, but ok…

 

[RX-79G]

Saying we learned how to do government (monarchy) from the British completely ignores the republic that was created, but ok…

The basis of our government and law is British government and law. Britain hadn't had an absolute monarchy since 1660. We got the 2nd Amendment and most rights from the British, a two house legislature and almost all property law from them. We decided to create our republic because we weren't being recognized in Parliament the way we should have been, and the new country addressed why that happened with the way we granted all citizens the same access to government. It was really never about monarchy.

The UK became just as much of a democracy as the US, but without a bloody revolution (France) or a wholesale dismantling of its traditions. Same with all of the world's current constitutional monarchies. Spain, Sweden, Norway, Belgium, Denmark, Japan, Netherlands, Thailand, Malaysia, etc.

 

[Ura-Ki]

Somebody needs to go and re learn his history of the civil war! Every thing he posted is flat wrong! It called the war of northern aggression BTW, and many southerners are still upset that history, Real history is ignored!

 

[RX-79G]

Somebody needs to go and re learn his history of the civil war! Every thing he posted is flat wrong! It called the war of northern aggression BTW, and many southerners are still upset that history, Real history is ignored!

The North was after your scrapple and collards.

 

[American123]

The basis of our government and law is British government and law. Britain hadn't had an absolute monarchy since 1660. We got the 2nd Amendment and most rights from the British, a two house legislature and almost all property law from them. We decided to create our republic because we weren't being recognized in Parliament the way we should have been, and the new country addressed why that happened with the way we granted all citizens the same access to government. It was really never about monarchy.

The UK became just as much of a democracy as the US, but without a bloody revolution (France) or a wholesale dismantling of its traditions. Same with all of the world's current constitutional monarchies. Spain, Sweden, Norway, Belgium, Denmark, Japan, Netherlands, Thailand, Malaysia, etc.

The UK didn't become a "democracy" until after experiencing a catalyst. The revolution that created the United States likely is the reason we do not have monarchies today as existed in the hundreds/thousands of years previously.

 

[USMC1911]

The South had a stunted economy that only favored a tiny number of plantation owners, rather than the majority of free people who mostly lived in poverty because of the lack of infrastructure and economic growth. That's one of the reasons the South lost the war - no manufacturing base, no railroads. The people at the top did that to all the people because it protected their incomes. So it was neither morally nor economically beneficial to keep slavery.

According to the logic you provide that should have provided good reason for a war or at the very least the population of Southern States to murder at an extremely high rate compared to the North. Lack of economic opportunity, poor infrastructure, lack of transportation, and vast poverty. Or is that only true when it fits your agenda?

 

[RX-79G]

The UK didn't become a "democracy" until after experiencing a catalyst. The revolution that created the United States likely is the reason we do not have monarchies today as existed in the hundreds/thousands of years previously.

This simply is false. England has had a kind of representative democracy since the Magna Carta. The usual date that the English monarch stopped being the defacto ruler of the empire was 1640, at which point Parliament took over ruling the country.

The US is also a representative democracy.

 

[RX-79G]

that should have provided good reason for a war or at the very least the population of Southern States to murder at an extremely high rate compared to the North

I do not understand this sentence. Why should a lack of infrastructure or poverty provided a good reason for the Civil War? What does that have to do with Sourthern rates of violence?

The Civil War happened because the slave states were about to lose parity in Congress, so the South violently seceded. The Union counterattacked to preserve the United States. The South was not initially attacked, it was the attacker.

 

[American123]

This simply is false. England has had a kind of representative democracy since the Magna Carta. The usual date that the English monarch stopped being the defacto ruler of the empire was 1640, at which point Parliament took over ruling the country.

The US is also a representative democracy.

The magna carta was a slip of paper that was signed by a desperate monarch to keep his feudal lords from usurping the throne. It had the idea of some form of representation and rights, but definitely not to the extent of the constitution, the magna carta still allowed for a monarchy, the constitution literally is a blueprint to prevent consolidation of power like that in a monarchy.

The US operates as a representative democracy in select instances, but it is still a constitutional republic. For example - no matter what people vote, some rights are still inalienable. (Or at least they were designed to be).

To claim Great Britain didn't have a monarchy during the time of the revolutionary war is what seems simply false.

 

[RX-79G]

The magna carta was a slip of paper that was signed by a desperate monarch to keep his feudal lords from usurping the throne. It had the idea of some form of representation and rights, but definitely not to the extent of the constitution, the magna carta still allowed for a monarchy, the constitution literally is a blueprint to prevent consolidation of power like that in a monarchy.

The US operates as a representative democracy in select instances, but it is still a constitutional republic. For example - no matter what people vote, some rights are still inalienable. (Or at least they were designed to be).

To claim Great Britain didn't have a monarchy during the time of the revolutionary war is what seems simply false.

I didn't claim that. I said it didn't have an absolute monarchy because it had a representative democracy in the form of Parliament, which held more power than the monarch.

A constitutional republic is an alternative to a constitutional monarchy, but both are based on the same idea of individual rights vested in that constitution.

You can argue all you want, but it is abundantly clear the Americans were pissed about what Parliament was doing to them, not the so much the king. Americans didn't invent the idea of representation to complain that they didn't have it - they were complaining that they didn't have representation equal to those who lived in England.

 

[Ura-Ki]

I do not understand this sentence. Why should a lack of infrastructure or poverty provided a good reason for the Civil War? What does that have to do with Sourthern rates of violence?

The Civil War happened because the slave states were about to lose parity in Congress, so the South violently seceded. The Union counterattacked to preserve the United States. The South was not initially attacked, it was the attacker.

Everything you just posted about the cause of the civil war is flat wrong! It would take pages and pages to nail it all down, BUT, the aggressive nature of the Northern states basically blocking the south from having ANY voice in government, raising taxes upon the south and attempting to control the south through its representation ( Lack of) were MAJOR reasons! In short, the North wanted complete power over the south, and the south gave them the finger!


You need to do some real research here!

BTW, we are a Constitutnal Republic, NOT a Democracy! Democracy implies we don't have certain rights, or that those rights can be given or taken away, among other things, and that MOB RULE can take control over how things are done here, and who gets to decide!

 

[RX-79G]

BTW, we are a Constitutnal Republic, NOT a Democracy! Democracy implies we don't have certain rights, or that those rights can be given or taken away, among other things, and that MOB RULE can take control over how things are done here, and who gets to decide!

I said we are a constitutional republic and representative democracy. Democracy doesn't imply anything about rights either way, it just means the people vote directly.

Everything you just posted about the cause of the civil war is flat wrong! It would take pages and pages to nail it all down, BUT, the aggressive nature of the Northern states basically blocking the south from having ANY voice in government, raising taxes upon the south and attempting to control the south through its representation ( Lack of) were MAJOR reasons! In short, the North wanted complete power over the south, and the south gave them the finger!

I think you mistake losing the majority with being "aggressively blocked from having a voice in government". The a portion of the slave owning South preemptively left the union before anything happened. 8 slave owning states did not.

 

[Ura-Ki]

The south was left with no choice but to cede after being bullied by the North, and being voted impotent in all government representation!

 

[RX-79G]

The south was left with no choice but to cede after being bullied by the North, and being voted impotent in all government representation!

Well, each state retained exactly the representation it always had. What you mean is that a particular legal concept and its advocates lost majority representation.

That's like saying that every time the President fails to get over 50% of the vote, all of his supporters should secede because they aren't being represented any more.


Realistically, would the South have been forced over time to give up the evils of slavery and join civilization with all the economic and class benefits the rest of the US had been enjoying? Sadly; yes. The nasty slavers would have to stop acting like feudal lords and joined reality with the rest of the modern world. But the plantation owners had all the money, so it would have been pretty smooth sailing for them as they opened factories and employed the population of poor whites in creating a middle class.

 

[Ura-Ki]

Well, each state retained exactly the representation it always had. What you mean is that a particular legal concept and its advocates lost majority representation.

That's like saying that every time the President fails to get over 50% of the vote, all of his supporters should secede because they aren't being represented any more.


Realistically, would the South have been forced over time to give up the evils of slavery and join civilization with all the economic and class benefits the rest of the US had been enjoying? Sadly; yes. The nasty slavers would have to stop acting like feudal lords and joined reality with the rest of the modern world. But the plantation owners had all the money, so it would have been pretty smooth sailing for them as they opened factories and employed the population of poor whites in creating a middle class.

No, the north over rode anything the south voted, and the north added to it's numbers of representatives while deminishing the south's voting powers! Basically, the north forced it's self over the south in voting and influence! The south was left with no voice or vote!

 

[RX-79G]

No, the north over rode anything the south voted, and the north added to it's numbers of representatives while deminishing the south's voting powers! Basically, the north forced it's self over the south in voting and influence! The south was left with no voice or vote!

The majority overrode the minority. I'm sure some Southern representatives voted with other northern states and against some Southern states on different issues.

But seeing the South as some single issue hive mind is kind of disrespectful. Or maybe the South only cared about slavery and little else. That is the ONLY issue they lost voice or vote on.

 

[Ura-Ki]

The majority overrode the minority. I'm sure some Southern representatives voted with other northern states and against some Southern states on different issues.

But seeing the South as some single issue hive mind is kind of disrespectful. Or maybe the South only cared about slavery and little else. That is the ONLY issue they lost voice or vote on.

Bullsh!t, everything you posted is flat Bullsh!t

 

[RX-79G]

Bullsh!t, everything you posted is flat Bullsh!t

You repeat yourself a lot. How's that working out?

 

[American123]

Bullsh!t, everything you posted is flat Bullsh!t

Now now, we use "excellent to eachother" words here.

Like "I disagree, what you said is wrong. Everything you posted is flat out wrong."