Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Definitely. All the Starbuck media darlings wouldn't have guns because they outlawed them.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Civil War 2.0
- Thread starter Father Heathen
- Start date
They didn't take up arms to support the Jan 6 insurrection.
The Magas I know wouldn't take up the risk or bother.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
Ignoring that guns haven't been outlawed, I think you're forgetting some rather important factors, namely law enforcement and military. They're far more sophisticated, trained, and equipped, and have vastly more numbers than any dopey rednecks dumb enough to take them on.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
I imagine that even the most ardent Gravy Seal LARPers/cosplayers would **** their pants and shelter in their basement the moment bullets actually started flying.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
You have no idea what a Redneck is capable of.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
They're capable of littering cornfields with their carcasses like this guy did: Cincinnati FBI field office attack - Wikipedia
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Wannabe separatists today still have a seemingly paradoxical nationalistic embrace of the United States of America politically, militarily and aesthetically. I don't think they want secession, I think they really just want to cry states rights to get their way whenever they lose the struggle for hegemony - they don't seem to care much about the rights of the other states when it is their turn to impose law on the others.
I also think the cultural and political divide as well as level of polarization to be wildly overstated.
That said, I'm not an American, so any Americans feel free to correct me.
I also think the cultural and political divide as well as level of polarization to be wildly overstated.
That said, I'm not an American, so any Americans feel free to correct me.
A key difference back then was a more robust economy and an improving standard of living which kept most of the masses content and disinclined to be influenced by the rabble-rousers and troublemakers of the era. Not that that those times weren't interesting, but there were greater safeguards against political instability back then which have since deteriorated.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
They've always been hypocritical when it comes to "states rights". They've opposed states legalizing gay marriage before it was recognized federally, legalization of cannabis, protecting abortion after Roe vs. Wade was struct down, etc..
I think you're citing perceptions of things rather than reality.
Just citing one of the differences between then and now. Actually there were many differences, which is why it's hard to base predictions on what will happen in the near future based on what happened in the past.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
They just don't want to see a centralization of federal government where it becomes one hive mind, one party , and only one voice, like the left people's wing so dearly wants to implement, in clear violation of the ratification of states outlined in the Constitution itself.
Wu Wei
ursus senum severiorum and ex-Bisy Backson
A lot of yelling, name calling, blame game, finger pointing, buck passing, crying, no one taking any responsibility for their actions, and of course moral indignation.... the occasional violent encounter and lots and lots of law suits..... and inflation....lots and lots of inflation....
There are those who do embody this perspective.
However I find states rights are typically invoked in opposition to civil rights, I've never seen it invoked to defend them. Hard not to see them as the last refuge of the socially backwards.
FWIW- I'm generally for things that limit the power of the federal government, I'm commenting on 'states rights' rhetoric specifically.
The democrats are not my people, but calling them the left people's wing makes them sound a lot cooler than they are.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
Of course they do; they just want it to be their theocracy in charge. The MAGA cult is a perfect example of a power hungry hive mind.
Supporting politicians that want to harm democracy and republic?
That's been the Democrats' mantra to attack Republicans.
But it's false. States' rights also protected gun rights. abortion
rights, gay marriage, etc. There's an advantage to not having
all our eggs in one federal basket.
Heyo
Veteran Member
That's the thinking that led to the first Civil War.
Some states were opposed to a federally guaranteed civil right.
And those states got their pigu kicked.
To reiterate, the federal government grants some
rights by legislation & Constitution. States are
able to grant more, but unable to rescind those
federally granted rights.
It's useful that even though the fed doesn't
recognize the right to abortion, many states do,
including mine.
Long live states' rights.