Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You could have at least added an intelligent comment to this thread rather than the ridiculous, and in poor taste pic of a re-enactor redcoat.
BTW - you will have to look hard to find a Brit that cares to defend Britain, or can even relate to the references people make about America fighting for its independence from Britain. And how it kicked "us" out. Modern day Brits who pay attention to this history (most don't) have long respected the courage those "new" Americans had. No doubt, many would have been there with them had they lived in that period. Remember, those new Americans were mostly from the UK, or a generation or so removed from G. Britain & Ireland.
Today, Brits honestly don't think about the war for American independence. It doesn't come up in conversation over there like it does here. They don't feel it impacted the lives of them or their ancestors - it didn't change anything for the everyday working folks unlike it did for Americans who rightly are aware of this. Brits are far more aware of the impact and consequences of WWI & WWII. And, as far as America goes, Brits have more compassion for the plight of Native Americans considering the suffering they went thru because of the "new" Americans. And, they have long rooted for African Americans to have equality and be truly respected as full American citizens. These are things the folks from the UK have cared about. Not abt losing some war that they didn't care about that was part of King's plan for his empire.
So, send your comments/pics to the Queen
Quote:
Originally Posted by my54ford
They may have compassion but they should study history,, They Celts, Picts, all cultures destroyed or subjugated by other cultures that were on the island. And don't even talk the plight of the black man in America! The Brits wanted the South to win more than anyone and were within a hair or recognizing the CSA as a nation which would have assured a separated Nation. AND don't forget to mention the Welsh Scotch or Catholics in Northern Ireland. Just like other children we learned our nasty habits form our parents.....
Sorry, you are only selectively quoting info to support your retort. Not everyone in Britain supported the south and slavery. I just posted a link sharing that an area in Northern England was calling for an end to slavery as early as in the 1700's. Here is another The Civil War Parlor and this, especially read Ending the Slave Trade slavery abolition movement abolition movement Britain England
Not sure what you mean about Welsh "Scotch" . And my father is from Ireland, I still have many relatives there. Happy to share how my family was impacted such their house blown up, family members driven away, and my grandfather who was killed by either the IRA or the Brit soldiers, we aren't certain whose bullets killed him as both were shooting in his direction. And the time I had a gun to my head as teen whose only "crime" was being English in a group of Catholic kids. I take no sides in that fight. And thankfully, it's in the past.
Now I think we need to allow this thread to get back to its original topic
Last edited by RaleighLass; 10-04-2014 at 05:12 PM..
Reason: fixed quotes
The British have their own issues to deal with. That country is getting lost and losing it's identity, they are soooo PC it's to the point of being embarrassing.
That being said, it's none of their business what we do here. I'm not a gun guy, I don't think about them, I find them boring and I believe that guns should be regulated... to a point.
The thing is is that criminals will always find a way to get guns.....
Do their kids get suspended from school for nibbling a Poptart into a gun-like shape?
You learn something new every day. I thought drinking **** warm beer was why you call it 'getting pissed'. (And I knew you were going to say 'correct' in response to my jibe about your choice of driving lane. That's as old as the hills, that one. )
Even as I loathe tobacco in all its forms, people go to pubs to drink, smoke, and flirt. The market should decide whether smoking is allowed in this establishment or that.
Actually, what you are referring to is ale, not beer. Beer is always served cold. Ale, on the other hand, is traditionally served at room temperature. On cold days it was quite common for ale to be warmed by either a hot poker or just put into the fire to heat up.
Beer and ale start out the same way, but ale is fermented at a higher temperature than beer. Ale also uses yeast that gathers on the top, and beer uses yeast that ferments on the bottom.
And what lies would they be telling them pray tell? Handguns make you sterile? Brother!
No, they tell them that the Healthy aspects of American gun culture are to be avoided. That everyone over here walks around with a machine-gun, and that if you look at someone the wrong way, they'll shoot you and spit some tobaccy in your eyes while they do it.
Quote:
I call it fear because that is exactly what it is. You're not arming yourselves in defense of that government lying to you and becoming less transparent on a daily basis as provided by the 2nd, but rather to defend yourselves from EACH OTHER. That's what's known as oxymoronic but you can skip the oxy part if you wish to be more accurate.
I do agree with you here. In a sense, we do view the 2A different from what it's intended purpose really is, and that is in no small part due to the fact that viewing the 2A in it's true form is largely considered to be not politically correct, radical, and extremist. Perhaos that is why you're upset? For if every 2A supporter walked around preaching the true purpose of the 2A, you could more easily convince the masses that they are anti-government extremists that we need to take steps to protect ourselves from....
Ah... I think I'm on to your true game here.
Quote:
The more of you are armed, the more of you will have to be armed to keep watch on all of those others who are armed and so on and so on. Once each and every one of you is carrying you'll have to find a third party to stand watch on all of you, maybe a trained chimp or orangutang.
Studies show that concealed carry permit holders are seven times less likely to commit crime than the average joe. Stats also show that at worst, concealed carry doesn't affect crime rates in an area, and at best, the crime rates slightly drop after CC..... so there goes your theory about more guns = more crime. The more good people who are armed, the marrier.
You ain't pulling any rug out from under me at all as I'm not advocating for the banning of weapons of any kind. I belong firmly in the camp of "knock yourselves out". I've found no problem in places I've visited welcoming me with armed patrols with SMG's in their airports as early as the late 70's. No problem with armed patrols patrolling the beaches I've relaxed upon. No problem being faced with a jeep and a M2 .50 cal aimed at my windshield as I've rounded a curve in the road and being asked for papers and a small bribe.
Just one thing though; those were all chit-hole countries.
Really? You've never been to FRA when there's a Bundestag delegation in Frankfurt then, because then you'll be welcomed in Germany by guards armed with UMP's. I've been in CDG too where I was welcomed by security armed with MP5's, and LHR the same. are you claiming that Germany, France and the UK are all "chit-hole countries"? Ben Gurion certainly was the best armed however that said most of the guards there were quite cheerful and not the sullen miserable type you see in Heathrow for example guess Israel is one too, who knew?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruSan
Now as to the fear thingy; I totally disagree, as I'm lucky enough to live in a country that still has a measure of respect for each other and the rule of law .....SO FAR! I'm old enough and wise enough to understand all things change and only some for the better.
You personally, no, I carry a gun, and have no more fear than having a fire extinguisher, but I won't get rid of my fire extinguisher, or my gun. If that in your mind determines I'm fearful (and I admit that yes I consider that someone may be a threat and attack me, which is kind of the definition of fear) so be it, but at least be intellectually honest.
If there is no general fear then why prohibit something? anything? Why prohibit or control ownership of explosives if not for fear? Why require drivers to pass a proficiency test if not for fear? Why prohibit the personal use of mind altering substances if not for fear? If you (I use the term generally not specifically to you) had no fear of people blowing things up, then why prohibit or control ownership of explosives? We don't prohibit or control them because we need to increase employment. If there is no fear of people causing accidents through incompetent driving why require a test? We don't require drivers tests because driving examiners are almost ubiquitously unattractive, so putting them in close one on one proximity with a complete cross section of the population will improve their chances of having good looking kids. If there is no fear of people killing themselves or others while stoned then why prohibit them? We don't prohibit them because we're concerned about excessive fast and snack food business profits.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruSan
I do not expect to be protected because I do not expect in my remaining lifetime to be occasioned to need to be. Ergo; no fear whatsoever.
How can you rationally and seriously make that statement?
The courts and police operate to protect you by catching, prosecuting and occasionally imprisoning criminals. You are being protected whether you are overtly using the service or not. If a criminal is not pursued from one or more crimes and happens on your doorstep, if you survive don't you think that you would be upset if you learned that even though the police knew the persons name, crimes and whereabouts that they just chose to not bother for a few days, while the donut shop had it's annual donut and coffee special? If you answer the question honestly then only a statement of "you would not be upset" gets you a pass on you have no expectation of protection anything else demonstrates you do have an expectation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruSan
As I've attempted to explain, I would not FEAR firearms becoming more prevalent with reasonable required background checks, but rather would feel nothing but disappointment that my country was going down the crapper so as to occasion the prevalent fear to desire a firearm to carry for personal defense.
You can't have it both ways, if there is gun control, it's implemented because collectively the fear of people (or subset of people) owning weapons is more dangerous than not owning them. If there is firearms ownership, it's because collectively society fears that the risks of the people (or a subset of people) being disarmed are greater than the danger of people being armed. Any other claims are by fundamental human nature entirely without merit.
I do not think that word [FEAR] means what you think it means. Here's a definition...
Quote:
an unpleasant emotion caused by the belief that someone or something is dangerous, likely to cause pain, or a threat.
So we're back to controls and prohibitions, if you believe that someone who has a gun is not dangerous or a threat, then why place controls and prohibitions, for the fun of it? If you believe that someone who has a gun is dangerous or a threat then isn't that covered by the true definition of fear?
I do not expect to be protected because I do not expect in my remaining lifetime to be occasioned to need to be. Ergo; no fear whatsoever.
.
That perhaps, is your problem. You have an unrealistic view of reality.
I do not expect to be in a car accident, and in all likelyhood I won't be, but I still wear a seatbelt.
I do not expect to have a house fire, and again, it's likely that I won't, but I still have an extinguisher, smoke detectors, and insurance if it should ever happen.
The same goes for carrying a gun and the expectation of being a victim of crime.
Interesting quote on slavery. where I come from in the northern UK, from the 1700's, they stood against slavery. Many mill workers went on strike in support of freeing slaves. This articles shares only some highlights of their story. these people were poor to begin wit,h but were willing to sacrifice to show support for slaves. Its a story I wish more Americans knew of More on British Mill Workers’ Stand Against American Slavery | SARAH PARKER REMOND: A Daughter of Salem, Massachusetts
It's been a long, long times since I attended school in the UK. But from what I recall, we might have spent 20 minutes (tops) on the American war for independence(?). You have to realize the amount of history that Brit kids have to learn. There were many battles, wars, and monarchs to learn about and memorize all the dates. There simply wasn't any focus on America's independence as many countries became independent from England
We've always looked at America as the country that has so much wealth and resources. As well as, at one time, maybe still now, the coolest cars And the place where, no matter your background, if you are willing to work for it, you can obtain an excellent college education, build wealth, and own land larger than a mini car
We also were reminded as kids that we owe America a debt of gratitude for helping us in WWII. We were told that if it wasn't for the Yanks, we'd be speaking German now The reality is, that if it hadn't been for Pearl Harbor being bombed, the Yanks might never have baled us out. But, I will always remain grateful they did, and honor the lives of Americans who fought for the UK and mainland Europe
Actually, Hollywood made a movie about William Wilberforce and the abolishment of the slave trade in England called "Amazing Grace." I make absolutely no claims as to its historical accuracy (it did come from Hollywood after all), but at least they got his name right.
All I can say is that it is too bad that the abolishment of the slave trade throughout the UK did not happen until after 1780. If it had occurred prior to the American Revolution, things would have been significantly different in the US.
Also do not forgot the Lend-Lease Act that was enacted in March 1941, 8 months before the US would actually get involved in WW II. The US lost a lot of Liberty ships to German U-boats before the US even declared war.
"A total of $50.1 billion (equivalent to $656 billion today) worth of supplies were shipped, or 17% of the total war expenditures of the U.S.[3] In all, $31.4 billion went to Britain, $11.3 billion to the Soviet Union, $3.2 billion to France, $1.6 billion to China, and the remaining $2.6 billion to the other Allies." --- Lend-Lease - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
(And I knew you were going to say 'correct' in response to my jibe about your choice of driving lane. That's as old as the hills, that one. 
)
And the place where, no matter your background, if you are willing to work for it, you can obtain an excellent college education, build wealth, and own land larger than a mini car
