What would be your reaction/thoughts on...

My rights aren't for sale. I would volunteer to buy the rights (guns) of others who do not value their rights, on a case by case basis- depending on finances available, and the desirability of the gun(s). End of statement.

James Wright & Peter Rossi were hired by the Carter Administration in 1977 to study guns, crime and violence in America.*
Among other things they examined the theories "guns cause crime" and "crime causes guns" and "guns deter crime".
"The existing research on all three hypotheses is highly inconclusive. ...--for example, evidence on the ensuing criminality of people who acquire firearms--does not exist. ... a fraction of private firearms is purchased in reaction to crime. Most firearms are purchased for entirely different reasons, ... " and their conclusions on deterrence was that the evidence was mixed, but believed plausible Gary Kleck's argument that criminals reported fearing being shot by a victim as much as they feared being arrested, tried and imprisoned.

Wright, Rossi, and Kleck were all self-described liberals who accepted gun control as unquestionably good ... until they did objective research.

Gun "buy-backs" are promoted by people who unquestionably believe guns are bad, gun control is good, and will not examine or test their apriori assumptions on the issue. And since gun owners and the NRA are evil in their eyes, lying about their ultimate intention is jusrified. We should not go along.

Personally I feel like accusing gun control proponents of having a vested interest in promoting a black market in guns and underground manufacture. And the easiest kind of gun to manufacture in a home workshop is the MAC10, STEn, Swedish K style submachine gun.
-------------------------------

On the Civil War side tracks above: Why the states seceded and why people fought were interesting questions. Many people in Virginia who did not own slaves and had no interest in slavery joined the Confederate Army because they were Virginians and Virginia was Confederate. many people in Kentucky who did own slaves and/or supported slavery joined the Union Army because they were Kentuckians and Kentucky was Union. So why people fought in the civil war very often had no relationship to slavery. Often had more to do with whose army was attacking their home state.
____________________________
* James D. Wright, Peter H. Rossi and Kathleen Daly. ''Under The Gun: Weapons, Crime, And Violence In America'', Aldine, 1983, revised edition of ''Weapons, Crime, and Violence in America: A Literature Review And Research Agenda'', US DoJ research, US Government Printing Office, 1981.

D.B. Cooper stated:
"In the ante-bellum (pre- Civil War) South, slavery was as much a societal institution as it was an economic institution."

"No matter how poor and/or disadvantage a white person was (and there were many that were), they could always say "at least I'm not a slave." To free the slaves, whether by legislation, by purchase, or by force, would kick a leg out of the chair that was southern society. This is why the vast majority of Confederate soldiers (like the vast majority of southerners in general) did not own slaves, yet sacrificed their lives to maintain the institution of slavery."

"This compares very well, I think, to the notion of buying us out of our guns. Gun ownership is part of my personal and family identity. It is who I am. Who my father was. Who his father was. Who my son will be (I hope.) I can't (and won't) put a price on that."

Well stated. It's about our way of life, our rights as free citizens of this country. The OP's theory would only serve to continue those differences the States faced then and that we are now quickly facing ourselves. And, in my opinion, result in the same outcome.

Lincoln was an extraordinary man with many wonderful qualities, but his ability to stop a conflict that had been brewing for decades and had great many reasons to occur is still very questionable, even for a man of his stature and wisdom. In fact, I would even say he was probably more responsible for the nature of the war than any other individual, though he undoubtedly intended to act for the greater good of all.

Taking into consideration the political situation the United States was in, Lincoln abolished slavery far too abruptly, thus ensuring the outrage of the southern states, and he then took the strong position, which some would call tyrannical, that states have no right to secede from the Union. He believed it was his obligation as President to enforce the laws that would keep the states in the Union even it were against their will as expressed by democratic conventions and state legislatures.

CyanWestley said:

Taking into consideration the political situation the United States was in, Lincoln abolished slavery far too abruptly, thus ensuring the outrage of the southern states, and he then took the strong position, which some would call tyrannical, that states have no right to secede from the Union. ...

Click to expand...

Lincoln abolished slavery which enraged the southern states to the point of secession ?

Hopefully, you just suffered a major OOPS while typing that ... if not, we need to check what is being taught in public schools.

Oh ... and Welcome to THR, CyanWestley!

GBExpat said:

Lincoln abolished slavery which enraged the southern states to the point of secession ?

Hopefully, you just suffered a major OOPS while typing that ... if not, we need to check what is being taught in public schools.

Oh ... and Welcome to THR, CyanWestley!

Click to expand...

Maybe he's not a native born American?

Ayup, it is certainly possible that s/he is a student living in Kentucky who originated in another country.

There is an international facet to all of this.

Remember we fought a War for Independence with the Brits (1775-1783), the Quasi War with the French (1798-1800) and another war with Britain, The War of 1812 (1812-1815). The European countries had been trying to undermine American sovereignty from the beginning.

The South was getting quite friendly with the Brits as they were their major trading partner. The textile mills in Britain were buying every last bit of cotton the South could grow. If Lincoln allowed the South to secede then it is quite possible that British troops could possibly be invited in by the South for protection.

With the French in Canada, the Brits to the South, the Northern States would feel very uncomfortable to say the least. I think that this was in the back of Lincoln's mind when he gave the Gettysburg Address and said that, "...that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

I agree there. The British and the French through their correspondents were watching with keen interest as General Robert E. Lee hammered the Union Army away from Richmond and then set off to annihilate another Union Army at the Second Battle of Bull Run.

"Not since Napoleon have we seen such genius on the battlefield." Such high praise coming from foreign correspondents made President Lincoln very nervous.

berettaprofessor said:

I've been thinking about the "theory" that Lincoln could have avoided the Civil War merely by purchasing and freeing the southern slaves, at much less projected cost to the country then the war that followed. To avoid another civil war over gun rights, what if the NRA supported a completely voluntary national gun buyback under the following conditions:

a) New legislative gun restrictions are off the table for some substantial negotiated period.
b) No tax dollars are used, general fund taxes or "special assessment"; funds for the buyback generated only by noncharitable donation from individuals and gun control groups.
c) buyback has to be at market value determined in some agreed on way.

Advantages ( in my mind); 1) gun control advocates have to put up money or quiet down. 2) the NRA gets credit for the proposal, taking heat off their political allies, 3) some guns will undoubtedly be collected; the anti-faction can point to the "thousands" collected and cheer, the rest of us can point to the fact that they're mostly Mosin's and cast junk, 4) I think that its entirely possible that not much money will be donated and there won't be a large dent made in the total supply of guns, exposing the true position of the citizens, 5) it avoids a national confrontation.

Disadvantages: If I'm wrong, billions are raised, most of the public takes advantage of the quick cash, and the supply of remaining guns gets concentrated in the hands of truly dedicated collectors and shooters. And then the legislature reneges on the "no new laws" and the fight happens anyway.

What else am I not thinking of?

Click to expand...

I believe that if the federal government had paid the slave owners to free their slaves, it would have been far less than what the Civil War cost in lives and treasure. The North wouldn't have had to occupy the South and transition to suffrage and civil rights would have been smoother and far less violent.

Crawdad1 said:

I agree there. The British and the French through their correspondents were watching with keen interest as General Robert E. Lee hammered the Union Army away from Richmond and then set off to annihilate another Union Army at the Second Battle of Bull Run.

"Not since Napoleon have we seen such genius on the battlefield." Such high praise coming from foreign correspondents made President Lincoln very nervous.

Click to expand...

Then he got greedy and headed up to your neck of the woods and overextended himself, losing men and equipment he couldn't afford to.

The Union Army was extremely lucky at Gettysburg. One huge break was General Lee was fighting blind for two of the three days yet they still almost won.

Crawdad1 said:

The Union Army was extremely lucky at Gettysburg. One huge break was General Lee was fighting blind for two of the three days yet they still almost won.

Click to expand...

Sometimes luck is all you need. Ask George Armstrong Custer!

Tommygunn said:

Sometimes luck is all you need. Ask George Armstrong Custer!

Click to expand...

Or Karma; ask Sitting Bull.

Even after splitting his army three separate times at Chancellorsville, tactics that are still being studied today, and after receiving congratulations from the South, a congressman approached General Lee saying, "Great victory General" General Lee simply shrugged saying, "What did we win?"

He knew the clock was ticking.

This has been a neat discussion, but we've wandered far from the actual question.