From the perspective of the European powers of the day, a Divided States of America would have been preferable.
You'd think so. One wonders why the BE didn't want to be more aggressive. Aiding the Confederates was yet another chance to slap the yanks in the face. Possibly even reconvene The King's Continental Congress for another session.
What more do you find worth discussing or debating on this issue? In the absence of the other side, should we blow the apparent differences out of proportion on the same side we are on?
How else do we know if we agree or not? You assume a bit much.
Perhaps I'm the only one of us that remember how this ends between us. Raincheck? Have a good day.
Get over this, though. There's precedence from the Supreme Court that it's not the end qualifier. That too shall not be infringed. Well regulated militias don't just appear so you can't stop the effort. It's a clarification. Nothing in the bill of rights is meant to be restrictive.
Why does it seem to gun-rightists that gun-control proponents want to remove guns and take guns away?
Perhaps because I'm not that. So if you're saying I'm not willing to go far enough without any context for what gun control is to you then I assume you only have one way to go. The way many countries have gone. Ban them.
I'm not @SmileyFaze but I can at least respect his opinion. I'd do the same with you. Mine is well documented. I'd go over it again with proper cause to.
Yes. Which is why I said the Civil War was over nothing, i.e. it did not change much.
Hindsight is a luxury modern minds take for granted. When judging history with modern eyes people often forget what it took for them to have the capacity they do. Even if it was over nothing, it changed everything.
In this sentence, what does "American" mean? Surely not natives (so-called Indians)? Then who? African-Americans (really Africans)? The colonist rabble (really Brits)?
Oh, right. Semantics.
Context is a thing. I'm not going to commit much if all I'll be arguing is besides the point...
That being said... If you have to add something to American... It's "surely" not that.
And. African-Americans aren't really Africans. Definitively not today and arguably not then either.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Not genetically. Not culturally. Unless you mean the ones Europeans were bringing over fresh off the boats. But lots came before the moment in time we're discussing. Which do you mean? They are different. This is a century after the formation of the Union. The slave trade had long since been outlawed in many countries that once participated. Even officially in the USA. Slaves at the time, though, were subject to selective breeding as well as the introduction of European DNA. Early eugenics that evolved into a movement later borrowed and buried by the Nazis. Evils that occurred and provided context for how the future chose to handle things. (That should bring us full circle.)
Not that I would even try to sum up what you just dismissed in a few paragraphs [The Civil War motives, or that last hidden bit.]. OR was even trying to do more than continue a conversation on them.
I really wasn't that concerned. But now I have to reiterate; What amendment? You seem interested in making my response seem pointless, however, your premise is not right and dismissive. Missing that and all contextual clues, where do you think that leaves me in this?
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Sadly still hoping to progress a discussion with you beyond the mundane task of nomenclature. No malice there, but for fuck's sake man. The next response form you is usually how I'm not trying to say anything. Simply not the case.
According to SF, the problem is that grandmother did not have a gun handy. "We need more guns so that the good guys can shoot first!" or something.
Clearly grandma had a gun handy. Too handy. Focusing on the more ignorant side of this, I am all for stricter laws for people who own guns but don't bother to secure them. Capital punishment isn't what I'd prescribe, but is often in such cases a self imposed punishment. Given gun culture and natural selection, an eleven year-old shouldn't find everything they need to enact such a deed. But are definitively the age to start learning the consequences.
People are dumb. Removing guns is only accepting it as the way things have to be. I don't agree that it has to be that way. If it takes idiots with guns to show that people don't have to be idiots, so be it. There's a long history of dying over stupid shit. May the future do better.
The southern states could have accepted Lincoln's amendment
What amendment? His election was the catalyst. Any efforts to amend the constitution would have failed outright given ratification. Legislative power was the issue and States seceded before he took office. The issue leading to war then turned to whether or not a State could secede. Thus beginning the war of northern aggression.
At the time the cotton industry relied on the labor force as the south's industrialization wasn't yet underway. Or at least not widespread.
and sentence their slaves for some crime or another to slavery, to keep their state of affairs.
Which is exactly what happened. See Civil Rights issues.
...
Some States, even ex-confederate ones, have laws against chaingangs and the likes today. Others do not. The Constitution is an old document and in a time where the Brits were taking American sailors as slaves to serve on their ships such a clause was more humane than the norm, for the time. Insisting that those who have taken from society give back. The potential for abuse in such a thing is obvious.
Of course there's still the refugee caravan. Coming to seek 100% legal asylum. Some 7,000 (or less) (probably less) people that seem to be the new boogieman for Trump apologists. Over 50,000 a month are caught trying to enter illegally with next to no useful or less damaging results from the administration. But lets worry about those people coming to enter according to established laws.
Bars in downtown Reykjavík ran out of beer serving thirsty US sailors and marines
I'm not sure the point of that article. Were the bars under stocked? Unaccustomed to military ships on shore-leave? Were the personnel exceptionally thirsty or numerous? Hell, were they sailors, Marines or soldiers, or all the above? (all different things)
That is one of those articles where reading the headline is all you need. Nothing else was really said.
Somewhere in mid-80's I read about Reagan's Star Wars plan. It was quite literally called that, the plan to nuclearise the atmosphere as if it belonged to the USA.
The Star Wars plan was an antinuclear program. While both the Soviets and US had plans to put nukes in orbit the plan was to put a satellite laser system in orbit to shoot down Soviet missiles (I'm sure other uses were considered). Either way I believe a treaty between the concerned parties made the need obsolete.
Don't forget that you are the one to turn the lights off when this forum closes (actually the original Opera forum, which must be considered closed by now).
Believe you're the one that got last post there. 😑
Netflix has been blocking VPNs for sometime now. I don't remember what method I was using, probably a lazy one. Thought I wanted to watch the new Star Trek (I was wrong about that). I refuse to give CBS any money though. I mean, Netflix paid for it, I pay them - seems reasonable to stay the course. CBS still messed it up. 💩