[4CJ]

You can always tell a neo-Confederate — but you can't tell him much.

Please get it right - 'paleoconservative', not neoconservative. And if I read your answer correctly, it is your opinion that an armed invaded must kill your familiy before you may attempt any defense. I'm sure they must be proud and appreciate the value that you place upon them.

[quidnunc]

4ConservativeJustices wrote: (You can always tell a neo-Confederate — but you can't tell him much.) Please get it right - 'paleoconservative', not neoconservative. And if I read your answer correctly, it is your opinion that an armed invaded must kill your familiy before you may attempt any defense. I'm sure they must be proud and appreciate the value that you place upon them.

Please get it right — I wrote neo-CONFEDERATE, not neoCONSERVATIVE.

[donmeaker]

Rather, you would assume that anyone carrying arms for a lawful purpose, must be assumed to be about to commit a heinous crime, and so must instantly be attacked. Ft Sumpter had stood since it was built without attacking Charleston. And so it would have stood, until the hot heads began to fire upon it.

Only a neo confed would claim that it was a threat, and that the unarmed ship Western Star was also a threat. But if the Western Star was a threat, why was it allowed to pick up the soldiers from Ft. Sumpter?