The CSA (Opinions)

[QuoVadisNation]

tl;dr

Differences: Cultural, economic, and demographic differences augmented by decades of propaganda and previous conflicts led to the cumulation of belief that the North had the intention to scale back a peoples' right to self-govern. (historical key notes see: Reasons for American Independence, Independence day, development of Constitution, Federalism v. Democratic-Republicanism, Jacksonian Democracy, trust in greenbacks, raid road politics, economics of the antebellum South / North, Northern and Southern population and economic disparity, sociology of how Southern society operated antibellum, and the Kansas War, and newspaper antebellum style)

The Civil War was complicated. Slavery was obviously the well-stocked powder keg but it wasn't the reason explaining why the powder keg was there in the first place.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Well first, how exactly is that different? It's speech. Isn't any form of speech protected by the First Amendment? That is the difference.

And if it causes me no harm than it is not really slander. Notice I said as much in my original post. If you publicly said I'm a member of the illuminati trying to take over the world, and it, for instance, caused me to not get a job or get fired than there would be damage and I could sue you for it.

But you yourself just support my point in all this, that our rights have their limits (here specifically, the freedom of speech).

That is true.

If I cause you harm then yes it can be stopped, but it specifically has to cause you harm. You can't say "He might cause me harm with something he's going to say, therefore you should restrict his speech." You also can't say "He might shoot me with that assault rifle, take it away!" (I actually do agree felons and ex-felons shouldn't be allowed, in the same way you can take liberty and as far as I'm concerned life as penalty for some crimes, so 2nd amendment rights can be taken away WHEN PROVEN GUILTY. Not before.

Right, sorry man, I don't think you understand the destructive potential of nuclear weaponry. The idea of giving regional governments the power to exercize the deadly force involved in the use of nuclear weaponry is simply insane.

The thing is, they wouldn't. In fact, I'd be more likely to trust most state governments with them then the federal government. The Federal Government has shown themselves to be a beaurecratic mess since FDR, unable to do anything efficiently. I think Texas should dare to build one, just to challenge them, don't actually fire it, just build one to show the Federal government you don't mess with the states.

Also, the reason I support states having nukes is to migitate the problem of "The people don't have the same weapons as the federal government, the federal government could rape you if they wanted too" (As someone else said here, I don't remember who it was.)

While I don't think I should be able to go into a store and buy a Tank, I absolutely think my state (And all other states) should be allowed.

 

[Arakhor]

I don't know if you've heard of something called nuclear disarmament, but that is one of your most stupid ideas (except the one about the Pope of course).

The Second Amendment as distributed and signed by the US states reads: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

How does that qualify your alleged right to drive tanks and maintain nuclear weapons?

 

[GhostWriter16]

I don't know if you've heard of something called nuclear disarmament, but that is one of your most stupid ideas (except the one about the Pope of course).

The Second Amendment as distributed and signed by the US states reads: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

How does that qualify your alleged right to drive tanks and maintain nuclear weapons?

I never said I had a right to drive tanks or carry Nuclear weapons. I said the 10th amendment allows the STATES to do so (Yes, the Federal Government can too, they both can legally.) But I'm saying the State Governments should stockpile tanks and nukes so that martial law becomes impossible.

 

[Arakhor]

At which point, the "United States" becomes a laughing-stock, even in America, and you simply have 50 independent countries pretending that they have one ruler.

 

[Tee Kay]

the State Governments should stockpile tanks and nukes so that martial law becomes impossible.

Would you rather like to see the United States of America dissolved and all the states becoming independent countries?

Edit: crosspost.

 

[GhostWriter16]

At which point, the "United States" becomes a laughing-stock, even in America, and you simply have 50 independent countries pretending that they have one ruler.

No, we are one country, who can choose to split apart if the US government continues to be dumb.

EDIT: @Taillesskangaru- I do want us to split into two countries, its about time New York, California, and Illinois didn't get to choose for the whole United States. The Liberal States can have their socialism, and the rest of the country can be free.

 

[Arakhor]

Precisely my point.

 

[Tee Kay]

There's no reason for the United States of America to exist if something as important as nuclear bloody weapons are in States control. Might as well dissolve it.

 

[GhostWriter16]

There's no reason for the United States of America to exist if something as important as nuclear bloody weapons are in States control. Might as well dissolve it.

I'm saying that the states should stockpile nukes only as a deterrent against Martial law. Its kind of like an "I dare you, try it!" When they try to continually break their constitutional authority and SCOTUS (Who I'm fairly certain either are paid off or are told when put on the court that you have to vote for what the liberals want or else) declaring it "Constitutional."

The states are the only deterrent, and I genuinely believe a civil war to split the US in two could well work.

The only reason I say states should be allowed to have nukes is as a deterrent, USING them would obviously be illegal, and there'd be no reason to use them unless a Civil War happened, even still, they're just there to stop the Federal Government from using nukes and to scare them.

 

[Communisto]

I'm saying that the states should stockpile nukes only as a deterrent against Martial law. Its kind of like an "I dare you, try it!" When they try to continually break their constitutional authority and SCOTUS (Who I'm fairly certain either are paid off or are told when put on the court that you have to vote for what the liberals want or else) declaring it "Constitutional."

The states are the only deterrent, and I genuinely believe a civil war to split the US in two could well work.

The only reason I say states should be allowed to have nukes is as a deterrent, USING them would obviously be illegal, and there'd be no reason to use them unless a Civil War happened, even still, they're just there to stop the Federal Government from using nukes and to scare them.

Yeah cause that's what the US needs; more constant threats of nuclear holocaust

 

[nonconformist]

I'm saying that the states should stockpile nukes only as a deterrent against Martial law. Its kind of like an "I dare you, try it!" When they try to continually break their constitutional authority and SCOTUS (Who I'm fairly certain either are paid off or are told when put on the court that you have to vote for what the liberals want or else) declaring it "Constitutional."

The states are the only deterrent, and I genuinely believe a civil war to split the US in two could well work.

The only reason I say states should be allowed to have nukes is as a deterrent, USING them would obviously be illegal, and there'd be no reason to use them unless a Civil War happened, even still, they're just there to stop the Federal Government from using nukes and to scare them.

Rofl....USA...the next Yugoslavia

 

[GhostWriter16]

Rofl....USA...the next Yugoslavia

I may not be happy with the USA right now, but we could easily crush your "European Union" (Which is the most ridiculous union of countries since the USSR.)

The USA is the greatest nation in the world. England is just socialist like the rest of them. You don't mess with the USA!

 

[nonconformist]

I may not be happy with the USA right now, but we could easily crush your "European Union" (Which is the most ridiculous union of countries since the USSR.)

But what happens when Conneticut nukes California, and Montana comes to their side, invading Delaware?
Ands what happens to the US controlled airbases here? Do the New Jerseyan airmen start strangling their Floridan co-pilots?

Europe isa united in defense
We are, however, not a "union of countries", we are an economic and social partnership with a common defence policy.
Read a book.

The USA is the greatest nation in the world. England is just socialist like the rest of them. You don't mess with the USA!

Uh, you're aware we have a right wing government, right?
And we been messing with you for yeaaaaars

 

[Tee Kay]

I'm saying that the states should stockpile nukes only as a deterrent against Martial law. Its kind of like an "I dare you, try it!" When they try to continually break their constitutional authority and SCOTUS (Who I'm fairly certain either are paid off or are told when put on the court that you have to vote for what the liberals want or else) declaring it "Constitutional."

The states are the only deterrent, and I genuinely believe a civil war to split the US in two could well work.

The only reason I say states should be allowed to have nukes is as a deterrent, USING them would obviously be illegal, and there'd be no reason to use them unless a Civil War happened, even still, they're just there to stop the Federal Government from using nukes and to scare them.

Um... what?

Deterrents only work if you also have the threat of using them. Anyway, if the States are able to challenge the Federal Government in such a way, then they are practically independent entities. Then there's no point to there being a United States of America or a federal government.

Also, the United States government using nukes against... the United States? Come on... you might have a point if the United States is an Orwellian dictatorship (which - this might be news to you - it isn't).

You seem to be advocating... even relishing... civil conflict between the states and with the federal government, and you think a "civil war to split the US in two could well work". No American patriot would think like that. It's clear you don't believe in the United States of America as a country, not its foundations, not its principles, and you have no faith in your fellow countrymen and their ability to rule and solve issues and live together as one nation.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Um... what?

Deterrents only work if you also have the threat of using them. Anyway, if the States are able to challenge the Federal Government in such a way, then they are practically independent entities. Then there's no point to there being a United States of America or a federal government.

Also, the United States government using nukes against... the United States? Come on... you might have a point if the United States is an Orwellian dictatorship (which - this might be news to you - it isn't).

You seem to be advocating... even relishing... civil conflict between the states and with the federal government, and you think a "civil war to split the US in two could well work". No American patriot would think like that. It's clear you don't believe in the United States of America as a country, not its foundations, not its principles, and you have no faith in your fellow countrymen and their ability to rule and solve issues and live together as one nation.

No, we aren't ATM.

I don't actually know that the states should have nukes, I posted it more for debate and to make a point then to actually say we should do that.

However, while the US may not be an Orwellian Dictatorship, we are falling face first into Communism, and no, we cannot solve things together as one nation, which means we follow the constitution. If you would like to not do so, you can leave (I'm talking to New York and California.)

 

[nonconformist]

The idea of a US state nuking another is laughable

West Virginia: DAMN YOU KENTUCKY! *nukes Kentucky*
Kentucky: Oh noooo*blindong flash*
West Virginia: Hahaha, morons, Oh shi.,....*huge cloud of radioactive dust settles over W Virginia, and the rest of the midwest, wiping EVERYTHING OUT

 

[Arakhor]

So the United States could declare war on pretty much all of Europe and single-handedly "crush" us all? I don't think I even know how to respond to that.

 

[Tee Kay]

I don't actually know that the states should have nukes, I posted it more for debate and to make a point then to actually say we should do that.

Your point, as far as I can gather, is that States should have nukes...

However, while the US may not be an Orwellian Dictatorship, we are falling face first into Communism

Precisely how, may I ask?

we cannot solve things together as one nation, which means we follow the constitution. If you would like to not do so, you can leave (I'm talking to New York and California.)

That's it, I'm more American than you.

 

[nonconformist]

So the United States could declare war on pretty much all of Europe and single-handedly "crush" us all? I don't think I even know how to respond to that.

I dunno, but 120,000 US servicemen would die almost immediately, and the US would lose most of its nuclear bases and air bases.