New Flag Flies Over Georgia Today

Status
Not open for further replies.
Byron Quick:

Right now, the California state legislature is trying to pass a law to eliminate evidence of racial bias in CCW permit issuance.

Reference:

http://www.saf.org/pub/rkba/press-releases/SAF-AGbill.htm (SAF press release of 5/7/03)

...or my personal alert on the subject:

http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw/ab1044.html

Now, the last Assembly committee this thing passed through was Appropriations. Here's the official committee digest describing for the legicritters what this thing does:

--------------------
> AB 1044
> Page 1
> Date of Hearing: April 30, 2003
> ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
> Darrell Steinberg, Chair
> AB 1044 (Negrete McLeod) - As Introduced: February 20, 2003
> Policy Committee: Public Safety Vote: 7-0
> Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: No
> Reimbursable:
>
> SUMMARY
>
> This bill recasts Department of Justice (DOJ) requirements regarding
> retention of applications to carry a concealed weapon and licenses to carry
> a gun. Specifically, this bill:
>
> 1)Deletes the obligation to file and store all copies of concealed weapon
> permits and instead requires DOJ to maintain a list of all licenses to carry
> a concealed weapon.
>
> 2)Deletes the requirement that DOJ maintain hard copy printouts of
> gun-related information.
>
> 3)Makes additional technical changes.
>
> FISCAL EFFECT
>
> Negligible costs to DOJ.
>
> COMMENTS
>
> Rationale . This bill is intended to update the concealed weapon permit
> application process. Current law requires DOJ to maintain all records
> provided to the department in compliance with handgun registration rules.
> Part of the information required to be maintained and stored is the
> application for a concealed weapon permit. This information must be
> provided to law enforcement officials, courts, designated government
> agencies, and the registered owner or borrower of the gun. Proponents state
> this information has not proved helpful.
> Analysis Prepared by: Geoff Long / APPR. / (916) 319-2081
--------------------

With me so far? Of the various changes this bill does, allowing the destruction of records held by local law enforcement agancies and vital to making equal protection claims fly isn't mention at all, it's lumped into "makes additional technical changes".

Why am I discussing this?

Because when a legislature decides to do something nasty, they don't come right out and say they're going to do something nasty!

Do you think Georgia's legislature of 1956 was any different? :scrutiny:

Why the hell do I even need to explain this?

:fire:
 
If the People of Georgia, in a statewide referendum, voted to put the confederate battle flag back on the state flag, what would your reaction be?
Click to expand...
Fascinating. IIRC, the general POV of the membership of this board (though not necessarily the poster) is that democracy is mob rule, and we're set up at the federal and (generally speaking) state level as a representative republic for a reason. Does one maintain this opinion even when the results of 'republicanism' don't go 'our' way?

Hmmm...

Mike
 
Coronach,

I am not sure what you are asking, or even if you are asking me?

Is your question rhetorical?

I don't know if you are familiar with the politics regarding the flag here in Georgia. If you are not, then let me know, and I will fill you in, and you will understand why I asked the question you have quoted from me.


El Tejon,

So basically you would just be real offended by such a flag, but not really do anything, is that what you are saying? I am not taunting you, just want to know what, if anything, you would want to do about it? Would you want a lawsuit filed to try to stop it?
 
i think it's quite funny that many of the people here don't like the government and their lies, yet who controls the "history" that you hear in school and who was it that started the "War of Northern Aggression"? the government. the government tells you guns are bad, and they tell you the Confederate flag's bad. yes, believe the government foolish sheeples, they're not so bad :uhoh:

I'll keep my Confederate flag and my guns, thank you very much.
 
I think the right name for that particular conflict was the war of northern aggression. Slavery was a horrible institution, but the southern states had every right to secede. If you compare Lincoln to say, Jefferson Davis, who was the more democratic president? Davis went to the confederate congress for permission for any action he took. Lincoln twisted the constitution to his purpose by starting conscription and a federal income tax. It is easy to look at the war of northern aggression and say, "it was all about slavery." If you take the high road and study it a bit, you'll find that although slavery was definately a small part of it, the major issue and the more important issue was state's rights. The war of northern aggression basically ended state's rights.
 
Any state that has the "right" to preserve an institution which is dependent on enslaving other does not have that right as far as I'm concerned. Any state that has the "right" to preserve an institution of taxation without representation does not have that right either. Any state which has the "right" to a so called final solution doesn't have that right.

Do you all believe that states "rights" trump human rights?
 
Duh, of course state's rights do not trump human rights. That doesn't change the facts about the war of northern aggression. It was more about state's rights than slavery. As I said, slavery is a horrible institution, but there were more issues involved, especially in the economic realm. Instead of wasting your time debating it with me, take the high road as I suggested and study the issue further. Pay to take a class or something, I'm not going to post one for free on the internet. You need to dig deeper instead of just scratching the surface.
 
I'm glad slavery ended, and also that the Union was preserved. Man, do I love these 50 states! (even Georgia, though it was too hot and wet when I was there:D )
 
Mr. Flory,

Do you find it the slightest bit odd that it was the SCOTUS that gave slavery a big two thumbs up, but that same govt said the Southern states could not go their own way as far as a seperate govt is concerned? Well, we had slaves when we seceeded from England, so where does that leave us?

And it's interesting that you bring up taxation, as the South was the economic cash cow for the North, paying the overwhelming majority of the taxes yet recieving none of the kickbacks. Kinda like slavery, neh?

And just for the record, there were slaves in union states, but shhhhhh, we don't want folks to know that, it spoils the clear black/white picture we like to keep as a myth regarding the war. Many of the Northern states that banned slavery did so not out of any love for blacks, but simply because they didn't want them there. John Adams wrote that "If the institution of slavery had not been extinguished, the people would have slain slave and master alike." Many northerners hated blacks, didn't want them around nor competing for jobs, and also hated whites that would hire/house them as opposed to their white brothers.

If slavery really was the issue, why didn't the Feds just buy all the slaves, and then set them free? A market solution would have worked, and been a bargain compared to the cost of fight an internal war. Or could it be that there was a lot more to this situation than just slavery, and maybe money and power did have something to do with it?
 
Would a "market solution" have worked?

Why is it that during the expansion westward, there had to be a slave state added for every free state? Why was the South so desparate to maintain that "balance"?

Because long term, they knew their "way of life" was under threat (where "they" equals the financial/political/social Southern elite who DID own slaves). Any offer to buy the slaves en mass would have led to war.
 
This country, the south especially, is (should be) ashamed of our history of slavery. It's shocking whenever someone tries to downplay its importance.
 
Lone, lawsuit? Goodness, no. On what grounds? It hurts a Yankees feelings? It spits on the graves of my ancestors? Georgia's flag is Georgia's problem. Let them solve it.

Preservation of slavery is what the South fought for, explicitly and implicitly. Of course, that symbol became something else over time as the Old South became the New South. However, it represents an evil that must be confronted.
 
Preservation of slavery is what the South fought for, explicitly and implicitly.
Click to expand...

I will certainly agree, sir.

I will even stipulate that if the CSA had won the war that it would have resulted in a catastrophe for both the North and the South...as well as Europe...in the next six decades.

Where I vehemently disagree is with the premise that slavery was THE issue. It was not.


I've never seen a convincing or even semi-convincing argument presented by the supporters of your position to explain these facts:

1)Slave owning Southerners fought for the Union.
2)Non-slave owning Northeners fought for the Confederacy.
3) The widespread riots that kept cropping up in the North every time that the abolitionists suggested that the war was being fought for the purpose of freeing slaves.

Just as an aside, perhaps you should peruse a list of the largest slave holders in the state of South Carolina just before the War of Northern Aggression. Hint: pay particular attention to the race of the slave holders.

None of us southerners are descended from slave owners? Bull. I am. There are some rich southerners in my ancestry. There are also some black slaves in the early to mid 1700's. Today I've fairly close kin that consider themselves to be black...second cousins and a great uncle. This is really irrelevant to the present discussion. It's added only to demonstrate that this issue isn't nearly as...black and white...as some would have it.

Oh, one more thing. Those Northeners who try to wrap their ancestors in a shroud of high morality due to this war...need to try sell it to someone whose ancestors didn't live in Sherman's path nor to someone whose ancestors didn't endure "Reconstruction." Reeducation in the communist sense would be closer. Reconstruction? I can show you acres of moldering foundations that somehow got passed by Reconstruction. Hint again: Check out the per capita income of the South before the war...then check out when it reached that level again...and I'm not talking about per capita income excluding counting the blacks.
 
It is real easy to use the liberal tactic of sloganizing on this issue by stating the obvious, "slavery is bad" without taking a hard look at the facts. Educate yourself if you want to argue about it. Lincoln had NO interest in freeing the slaves until it benefited him politically.
 
El Tejon

This topic about southern flags and slavery and other things that happened 150 years ago seems to be very personal to you. Did you have Great Great Grandfathers/mothers that were slaves at one time? Someone perhaps killed in the War Between the States? Or do you just enjoy stirring the pot and inflating your ego thinking your state was a great liberator and defeated evil. Tejon tell us about your family tree and the part they played in Indiana's war of liberation. I am curious. Or are you only a TROLL?
 
HBK, regardless of Northern motives, the war was about slavery to the South. The facts reveal that the South attacked the North for the reason that they wished to defend slavery, explicitly and implicitly.

Bryon, wow, a Southern who admits that his ancestors owned slaves! That's a first for me. Usually we get the "dirt poor" or "never owned slaves themselves."

As to each soldier's motives, I have no idea. I could only tell you that it would depend. However, the official governmental reasons are well documented.

As for the suffering of the South, that is Civil War. It could have been much worse if Lee had not given up when he did. The South suffered far less, despite the calls for justice and vengence from my own ancestors, than any other group which betrayed its country thanks to the inherent mercy of the North.

I know the South resented its reintegration into the nation and fought bitterly against the civil rights given the new freedmen, but that is why the state of Georgia changed its flag in '56. I am glad that horrible symbol is gone.
 
Jim March That's NOT the issue here. It's about the "war" against civil rights that was going full-bore in 1956.
Click to expand...

Jim does have a point here: the offense that people take in the battle flag comes more from its use during the 1950s than in the 1860s.

Unfortunately, the battle flag was taken up by segregationists in the 1950s. The flag is flown by Klan types. Whatever it originally meant, that meaning has changed for the worse.

El Tejon the state government never put Klan's symbol on the Colorado or Indiana flag.
Click to expand...
Yes, but Colorado and Indiana do fly a Klan flag over their statehouses every day. See it here. Why don't you want that Klan symbol taken off your statehouse? For shame! ;) At least the battle flag isn't also associated with near genocide.

El Tejon Bryon, wow, a Southern who admits that his ancestors owned slaves! That's a first for me. Usually we get the "dirt poor" or "never owned slaves themselves."
Click to expand...
1) Most Southerners were poor farmers.
2) A minority owned slaves.

Therefore it is logical that most people with Southern ancestors are descended from poor non-slave owners.
 
El Tejon,
official governmental reasons are well documented
Click to expand...
They are, I agree. You need to hit the books or a least watch "The Civil War" by Ken Burns.
You should know that only a small percentage of people could afford Slaves back then. Laws in the south were past that anyone who Owned Slaves did not have to fight. A Rich man's war a Poor boy's Fight. I have ancestors that fought on both sides. The Southern side did not own slaves could barley feed their families And like the Northern counter parts they did not give a rat's butt about the slavery issue the poor men of the time were rounded up and forced to join. The Flag issue is a moot point. Nothing but total eraser of all southern monuments and memorials of our fallen ancestors will appease the northern bigots and the NAACP.
 
Whatever. Your statement is false. The war was about FAR MORE than slavery. It was more about state's rights. Lincoln did NOT run on a platform to free the slaves. He had no interest in freeing the slaves until 1863. He often said that if he could preserve the Union and keep the institution of slavery, then he would. The southern states did not secede because Lincoln was going to end slavery. They seceded because the federal government was beginning to take over domains which were exclusive to the states. I would understand all the manure being shoveled about the south attacking the north to keep slavery if the facts were different, but the fact is slavery was not in danger because Lincoln was not going to touch it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

2
  • Locked
Confederate flag removed from memorial site
2
Replies
26
Views
2K
Preacherman
P
C
  • Locked
Students ousted in drama competition for flag-cutting scene
Replies
16
Views
940
c_yeager
C
D
  • Locked
Rebel flag, guns not wanted at battle event
2 3 4
Replies
84
Views
3K
johnsonrlp
J
M
  • Locked
Georgia decides against crime database
Replies
5
Views
1K
Ed Straker
E
M
  • Locked
First they came for our cloths with flags printed on them...
2
Replies
40
Views
1K
Art Eatman
A
Back
Top